Jim Smith

That's only in his little part of the world. I wonder how many people he
has caught in his fields? Maybe 10-12 people. That's not even 1 thousands
of 1 per cent of all offroaders. I do feel for his pain. I wouldn't want
anyone destroying my property, but to state that he "dislikes fourwheelers",
is a very biased opinion. What about the clubs that spend weekends cleaning
trails, building trails or otherwise helping build the hobby?

Jim Smith

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149181356.441456.148000@h76g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> C. E. White wrote:
>
>> I have a lot of dislike of people who like to go "four wheeling." I run a
>> small farm. Lots of the wannbe four wheeling masters decide my fields are
>> just perfect for trying out their vehicles. They cruise around in my
>> field
>> cutting tracks and distributing trash. I've even had then ride around in
>> unharvested soybean fields. I have stopped and asked them to leave only
>> to
>> catch them again the next week. Now maybe thius only a small (very small)
>> percentage of four wwheelers, but they sure make me dislike the category
>> as
>> a whole. Given that they have no regard for obviously private property, I
>> can only imagine how they treat "our" land.
>
> Thanks for telling it like is really is. "Tread lightly" is a big joke
> for many of them.
>
> R. Lander
>

Jim Smith

Oh and your lies are okay to ------. Look, you can have your opinion, I
will have mine. Agree to disagree, that's the best we can hope for.

Jim Smith

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149182150.929230.165970@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> header, not your altered one.
>
> You forget that the ***** were far-right punks with no respect for
> "lower life forms." They shared traits with modern right-wingers who
> think nature should yield at will beneath their Jeep tires. Don't
> pretend you're operating on some higher moral plain with all your lies
> about endless frontiers.
>
> R. Lander
>
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>> Maybe you should define what you think an enviromentalist is, because
>> if you are talking about your average hippie hiker, out on his bike or
>> walking through the trails they leave more impact than the average 4wd
>> trail rider. Powerbar wrappers, feces and "biodegradable" toilet paper
>> to name a few, oh and the ability to turn an area upside down to
>> accomodate their extended camping stays.
>>
>> But since you are on a roll, lets explore your extremely flawed logic.
>> The "Conquer Nature" mentality is the reason you even have these spots
>> to enjoy. Mining companys, prospectors and railroad companys were out
>> here not to conquer nature but to make a living from it and make it a
>> livable space at the same time. This land is our land, not yours not
>> ours, but OUR land collectively, that means that what may be fun to
>> some is not fun to other but you tolerate or are at least respectful to
>> each other.
>>
>> Since you have so much to say about this, I assume that you have
>> positioned yourself to do something about it though, right. You are out
>> every weekend cleaning up the trails and organizing groups to monitor
>> the land, right? Id be willing to be not. You know the history and
>> geography of the lands you visit and leave them in a better state than
>> when you arrived. Right?
>>
>> Sorry, but you just really have no clue as to what you are talking
>> about here. There is plenty of wild frontier, unexplored canyons,
>> mountains and valleys. But you have to be motivated to get out there
>> and usually it is the offroader who has that drive and sense of
>> adventure. The average enviromentalist waits for an area to be opened
>> up, then wanders in and says it should be closed to the very same
>> people who found it. Great logic, if it wasnt for the explorers you
>> guys wouldnt have any areas to whine about.
>>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Corey T. Shuman
>> cshuman@goldrushexepeditions.com
>> www.goldrushexpeditions.com
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
>> > all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
>> > Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
>> > view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
>> > it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>> >
>> > People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
>> > sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
>> > Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
>> > to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
>> > It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>> >
>> > It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
>> > environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
>> > protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
>> > Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
>> > impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
>> > the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
>> > to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>> >
>> > In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
>> > more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
>> > places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
>> > trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>> >
>> > R. Lander
>

Jim Smith

Oh and your lies are okay to ------. Look, you can have your opinion, I
will have mine. Agree to disagree, that's the best we can hope for.

Jim Smith

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149182150.929230.165970@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> header, not your altered one.
>
> You forget that the ***** were far-right punks with no respect for
> "lower life forms." They shared traits with modern right-wingers who
> think nature should yield at will beneath their Jeep tires. Don't
> pretend you're operating on some higher moral plain with all your lies
> about endless frontiers.
>
> R. Lander
>
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>> Maybe you should define what you think an enviromentalist is, because
>> if you are talking about your average hippie hiker, out on his bike or
>> walking through the trails they leave more impact than the average 4wd
>> trail rider. Powerbar wrappers, feces and "biodegradable" toilet paper
>> to name a few, oh and the ability to turn an area upside down to
>> accomodate their extended camping stays.
>>
>> But since you are on a roll, lets explore your extremely flawed logic.
>> The "Conquer Nature" mentality is the reason you even have these spots
>> to enjoy. Mining companys, prospectors and railroad companys were out
>> here not to conquer nature but to make a living from it and make it a
>> livable space at the same time. This land is our land, not yours not
>> ours, but OUR land collectively, that means that what may be fun to
>> some is not fun to other but you tolerate or are at least respectful to
>> each other.
>>
>> Since you have so much to say about this, I assume that you have
>> positioned yourself to do something about it though, right. You are out
>> every weekend cleaning up the trails and organizing groups to monitor
>> the land, right? Id be willing to be not. You know the history and
>> geography of the lands you visit and leave them in a better state than
>> when you arrived. Right?
>>
>> Sorry, but you just really have no clue as to what you are talking
>> about here. There is plenty of wild frontier, unexplored canyons,
>> mountains and valleys. But you have to be motivated to get out there
>> and usually it is the offroader who has that drive and sense of
>> adventure. The average enviromentalist waits for an area to be opened
>> up, then wanders in and says it should be closed to the very same
>> people who found it. Great logic, if it wasnt for the explorers you
>> guys wouldnt have any areas to whine about.
>>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Corey T. Shuman
>> cshuman@goldrushexepeditions.com
>> www.goldrushexpeditions.com
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
>> > all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
>> > Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
>> > view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
>> > it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>> >
>> > People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
>> > sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
>> > Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
>> > to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
>> > It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>> >
>> > It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
>> > environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
>> > protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
>> > Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
>> > impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
>> > the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
>> > to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>> >
>> > In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
>> > more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
>> > places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
>> > trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>> >
>> > R. Lander
>

Jim Smith

Oh and your lies are okay to ------. Look, you can have your opinion, I
will have mine. Agree to disagree, that's the best we can hope for.

Jim Smith

"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149182150.929230.165970@i40g2000cwc.googlegr oups.com...
>I replied to your Limbaugh-script comments using my original subject
> header, not your altered one.
>
> You forget that the ***** were far-right punks with no respect for
> "lower life forms." They shared traits with modern right-wingers who
> think nature should yield at will beneath their Jeep tires. Don't
> pretend you're operating on some higher moral plain with all your lies
> about endless frontiers.
>
> R. Lander
>
> Corey Shuman wrote:
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>> Maybe you should define what you think an enviromentalist is, because
>> if you are talking about your average hippie hiker, out on his bike or
>> walking through the trails they leave more impact than the average 4wd
>> trail rider. Powerbar wrappers, feces and "biodegradable" toilet paper
>> to name a few, oh and the ability to turn an area upside down to
>> accomodate their extended camping stays.
>>
>> But since you are on a roll, lets explore your extremely flawed logic.
>> The "Conquer Nature" mentality is the reason you even have these spots
>> to enjoy. Mining companys, prospectors and railroad companys were out
>> here not to conquer nature but to make a living from it and make it a
>> livable space at the same time. This land is our land, not yours not
>> ours, but OUR land collectively, that means that what may be fun to
>> some is not fun to other but you tolerate or are at least respectful to
>> each other.
>>
>> Since you have so much to say about this, I assume that you have
>> positioned yourself to do something about it though, right. You are out
>> every weekend cleaning up the trails and organizing groups to monitor
>> the land, right? Id be willing to be not. You know the history and
>> geography of the lands you visit and leave them in a better state than
>> when you arrived. Right?
>>
>> Sorry, but you just really have no clue as to what you are talking
>> about here. There is plenty of wild frontier, unexplored canyons,
>> mountains and valleys. But you have to be motivated to get out there
>> and usually it is the offroader who has that drive and sense of
>> adventure. The average enviromentalist waits for an area to be opened
>> up, then wanders in and says it should be closed to the very same
>> people who found it. Great logic, if it wasnt for the explorers you
>> guys wouldnt have any areas to whine about.
>>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> Corey T. Shuman
>> cshuman@goldrushexepeditions.com
>> www.goldrushexpeditions.com
>>
>> R. Lander wrote:
>> > The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
>> > all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
>> > Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
>> > view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
>> > it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.
>> >
>> > People with a conquer-nature mentality have little respect for its
>> > sanctity. The show stealer is their fancy machinery, not the land.
>> > Nature is just another place to make noise and whoop it up. It's hard
>> > to prove, but the number of offroad litterers is probably at least 25%.
>> > It goes beyond a few rotten apples making the rest look bad.
>> >
>> > It's very simple: people who bash environmentalism don't respect the
>> > environment that much. They talk of "extremism" but effective
>> > protection will always seem extreme to those who want land UNprotected.
>> > Environmental problems are people problems and more people create more
>> > impact. Population can't continue without stealing more land. That's
>> > the crux of all these conflicts. It's not about shadowy entities trying
>> > to block your rights, it's more people fighting over less acreage.
>> >
>> > In the lower 48 states, there's no real frontier left. We don't need
>> > more machines, noise and trail(er) trash invading the last wild, quiet
>> > places. Be happy with all the trails you've got. If you find those
>> > trails overcrowded, blame human overbreeding, not environmentalism.
>> >
>> > R. Lander
>

R. Lander

Steve Foley wrote:

> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your personal
> enjoyment.

Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.

Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

R. Lander

R. Lander

Steve Foley wrote:

> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your personal
> enjoyment.

Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.

Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

R. Lander

R. Lander

Steve Foley wrote:

> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your personal
> enjoyment.

Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.

Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.

R. Lander

Jim Smith

Ever been to Montana? More 4 wheel drive vehicles there and more open land
than almost any other state.


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
>> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your
>> personal
>> enjoyment.
>
> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
> illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
> always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.
>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
> Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
> thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
> or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
> of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
> is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
> powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.
>
> R. Lander
>

Jim Smith

Ever been to Montana? More 4 wheel drive vehicles there and more open land
than almost any other state.


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
>> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your
>> personal
>> enjoyment.
>
> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
> illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
> always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.
>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
> Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
> thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
> or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
> of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
> is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
> powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.
>
> R. Lander
>

Jim Smith

Ever been to Montana? More 4 wheel drive vehicles there and more open land
than almost any other state.


"R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1149184562.833916.202840@i39g2000cwa.googlegr oups.com...
> Steve Foley wrote:
>
>> It seems like you're saying that all of the land will eventually be
>> bulldozed, but until that happens, you want it 'preserved' for your
>> personal
>> enjoyment.
>
> Of course we can never pave all the land, but it shouldn't need
> constant protection from growth unless it's lucky enough to be saved as
> a park. The idea that more land must to be used all the time is
> illogical. We should lower our birthrates instead of living like cattle
> always trying to break down fences for a bigger range.
>
> Instead of making it about hikers vs. Jeepers, we need to stop pitting
> Man against nature, period. It's a philosophical thing, not a Jeep
> thing. Noise and wilderness don't mix. You can raise a ruckus in town
> or test your 4WD capabilities on a local dirt plot. We are running out
> of places where the true appeal of nature can be experienced. Nature
> is, in many ways, the absence of mechanical noise. When I hear a
> powerboat on a lake or an engine in the woods, I wonder why I traveled
> that far just to be reminded of the blasted city.
>
> R. Lander
>