Trail(er) trash
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
On 1 Jun 2006 10:00:37 -0700, "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
On 1 Jun 2006 10:00:37 -0700, "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
On 1 Jun 2006 10:00:37 -0700, "R. Lander" <r_lander60@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
wrote:
>Corey Shuman wrote:
>
>> Nice agenda, but complete --------. Sorry, but Id like to see any proof
>> of this other than just your unsubstantiated ramblings.
>
>The world's population grows by 75 million people each year and 3
>million of them end up in the United States. That's why land for
>recreational use is shrinking. I doubt you even had knowledge of those
>basic figures. You look at a stand of trees in the distance and don't
>see the houses creeping up behind it.
Are these figures "fact", or "estimates?
>
>> 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.
>
>If such hikers exist (where exactly?), at least they aren't adding
>noise and fumes to the mix. A narrow hiking trail with barely audible
>footsteps is nothing compared to a huge slash with Jeeps and white
>trash rumbling over it. I don't know any hikers who don't pack it out,
>and the whole hiker mindset is much less likely to litter. I think
>you're confusing land squatters with recreational hikers.
>
>> 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.
>
>If the population ever stops growing there could be some balance
>between the needs of people and the needs of other species and
>wilderness. But the population keeps growing and taking over more land
>for recreation, housing, mining, you name it. You treat nature as
>limitless but you're flat out wrong. That's why all these conflicts
>exist, for crying out loud. Look at satellite photos and topo maps.
>Most land is chopped up into parcels and development is constantly
>encroaching on the boundaries of nature. Most people are clueless about
>the "ecological footprint" of modern Man, including his vehicles.
>
>> 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?
>
>Ah, here we go. You've finally admitted that there are problems, but
>instead of seeing the bigger picture (too many people) you'd rather put
>it all on me for not solving things singlehandedly. Believe me, I'm
>doing plenty, and I'm not demanding more roads in roadless areas. I
>understand that there are limits to growth but you refuse to see any.
>
>> 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.
>
>Define "plenty." How many acres per square mile should stay roadless?
>The land is losing that battle EVERY DAY. The amount of wilderness in
>the world shrinks every time a housing project goes up or a road is
>built, and that happens 365 days a year (thousands of acres daily,
>vanquishing the last frontiers). Environmentalism wouldn't be needed if
>the land was as unscathed as your fantasy has it. You talk in vague
>terms about frontiers you can't really define. Fifty acres at the end
>of a dirt road could be called a "frontier" if one chose to. Admit that
>you respect people and their "right" to relentless intrusion more than
>you respect intact nature. Don't try to fake your motives.
>
>> 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.
>
>Are you claiming that only people in motorized vehicles can "get out
>there" because they can go faster with greater ease? What an idiot. You
>keep assuming there's real frontier left, and that it's somehow a bad
>thing to just leave it alone. You need to learn more about what
>population growth is doing to the landscape around the clock. It's
>basically a slow war of attrition against wilderness. Growth conflicts
>are making headlines every day all over the nation because the
>population NEVER stops growing. That bothers me but you're just fine
>with it, aren't you?
>
>> So keep this kind of unsubstatiated BS on the SUWA and other
>> short-sighted groups sites, cause it holds no water here.
>
>It's substantiated by scientific and visual evidence that you are
>willfully ignorant of. You probably voted for Bush, our great "Creation
>Science" President. The truth is that overpopulation is carving up
>wilderness and off-roading just adds to the problem. You can't treat a
>grossly unbalanced situation as a mere case of Jeepers getting
>harassed.
What evidence? Again, you throw statements out, without cold
hard facts to back anything up. Heck, we're going to bash
presidents...who signed NAFTA? It's funny how people go for the
"you probably voted for..." line when they really don't have "hard"
facts to back them up. You want to quote the scientific side of
things...most are theories as well. Einstein's "E=MC2" is still....a
theory...how many years later? Don't get me wrong. Einstein
was a brilliant man who was before his time. Ecentric, but
brilliant. :)
I was told long ago, and reminded every once in awhile to pick
and choose your battles. You coming in hear spewing information
(without one reference/fact to back anything up) about the
environment in a newsgroup devoted to 4 wheel vehicles, is
like jumping into a cage full of carnivorous animals who haven't
eaten in a month!
>
>R. Lander <---Troll. PLONK!
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Not a bad troll....
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Not a bad troll....
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Trail(er) trash
Not a bad troll....
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
I am in the woods year round and see idiots in all manners of vehicles
and modes of transportation. That doesn't mean all the people in the
woods are idiots though...
The group I wheel with are from the rec.autos.makers.jeep+******
newsgroup and we actually clean the trails and have been part of
organized clean ups in our local mud pit area. You should see the pits
in the spring when the snowmobile trails have melted down! What a bunch
of slobs! Are all snowmobilers slobs, no, but enough of them to really
make a mess.... Now the same snowmobilers are getting on the trails in
ATV's.... Jeepers use the trails year round in their Jeeps.
We always pack out more than we brought in and leave a clean camp. We
also like to wander along the forestry/logging/mining roads to see what
we find or where we end up. Usually to try and find a remote area to
set up a base camp and we do bring canoes and dingies and things. We
don't go trespassing on posted land nor do we tear up new trails or
fields. We have avoided winter trails when asked by the loggers so the
road would set up or freeze smooth for their big rigs. We always make a
point of talking to the folks working in the bush so we can stay out of
their way.
Unfortunately I see far too many of the slob types you are referring to
in the woods... All we can do is try to educate them. Their parents
were likely slobs too...
I have been accused of being elitest because I don't want to make all
the trails I know public domain with internet directions even, but man
the moron factor has been getting pretty bad out there lately....
I like taking out groups of new and/or young Jeep owners to show them
what their Jeep can do without either destroying their Jeep or the
environment. We lead by example eh. Our son, now 22 and his friends
turned out as responsible adults.
Mike
86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
Canadian Off Road Trips Photos: Non members can still view!
Jan/06 http://www.imagestation.com/album/pi...?id=2115147590
(More Off Road album links at bottom of the view page)
"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
