Us outdoors enthusiasts just got screwed by Clinton!

[Andy Perreault]

The news headlines say that Hillary's husband just made a move to ban roads in our national forests. Of course, the news media makes it look like it's all good because it keeps out those big, bad, naughty logging and mining companies. What they don't mention is that anyone with an interest in four wheel drives, camping, snowmobiling, motorcycles, etc. , will now be locked out of millions of acres of so-called "public" lands in our country. Once again, very powerful special interest groups (all city people who don't like to get mud on their yuppie SUV's) have taken it upon themselves to decide what's best for us!
If you have any interest at all in enjoying the outdoors, check out the Blue Ribbon Coalition, http://www.off-road.com/~brc/ . Their motto is: "Preserving our Natural Resources for the Public, instead of from the Public. "
I've been camping since I was 3 years old, and to me there is more to camping than sitting in a paved parking lot with hookups and cable TV!
I'd write more but I'm just getting more PO'd as I write this, so I'll shut up now!!
#ad
Andy

 

[Bob Wagner]

Dirty SOB's

 

[BCFAST]

Andy, I agree... to an extent. I too enjoy the outdoors. . hiking, etc. I am NOT a 4-wheeler, and have seen abuse after abuse by "those people". There are responsible off-roaders and irresponsible off-roaders, but sadly, it only takes one or two irresponsibles to ruin 200 years of forest growth or Everglades marsh habitat. So, how do we protect our natural areas from the idiot yahoos that go tearing off trails and into virgin territories yet allow good folks like you and me who PAY for the public lands to get out there and enjoy them? How about empowering Rangers with the right to "profile" park goers? It sure seems to work on our nations' highways to curb drug traffic (much to the dismay of the liberals!)
How about Rangers right to shoot to kill? That ought to deter a misadventure!

 

[tmacc]

Believe it or not, this bill includes mountain bikes. Yeah, the human powered kind.
Go figure. Maybe Bush can do something about it.
But the above post is right. It only takes a couple of yahoos to give everybody else a bad name. Most MTBers and off road enthusiasts treat the trails properly, but I've run into idiots that I would gladly have shot on sight.

------------------
'01 2500 4x4 4. 10 White/Driftwood QC plain SLT auto trans snow prep camper package tow package bed liner mopar mud flaps Reading Ind. 33" tall contractors cap. Toys: 3 mountain bikes, a cyclo-cross bike, and a road bike, plus a couple of whitewater kayaks. Yeah, I know their human powered, but the bikes are fun to modify too. Like spending $$$ to make trucks more powerful, It takes $$ to make bikes lighter. Titanium isn't cheap.

 

[illflem]

Heard on the radio this afternoon that the Bush Admin. is already planning on overturning this one,so don't fret.

 

[Andy Perreault]

Originally posted by illflem:
Heard on the radio this afternoon that the Bush Admin. is already planning on overturning this one,so don't fret.

Yeah, you just watch how the newsmedia will try to make him look bad for doing it. They'll say he's catering to the logging industry, and that he wants to see our public lands get polluted, etc.

... but sadly, it only takes one or two irresponsibles to ruin 200 years of forest growth or Everglades marsh habitat. So, how do we protect our natural areas from the idiot yahoos that go tearing off trails and into virgin territories...

BC Fast, that's why I used the term "four wheel drives" and not "off-road". I agree with you, there are too many idiots out there who don't care and they should be shot on sight. Me personally, I don't "off-road" per se, I enjoy exploring dirt roads and getting away from the crowd, where I can enjoy a campfire without having to listen to rap music on one side of me and a loud TV on the other.

Another thing that makes four wheel drive enthusiasts look bad is those TV commercials (Toyota does it all the time) that show trucks blasting through streams at high speed, etc. They make us all look like a bunch of wild eyed careless adrenalin junkies.
Andy

 

[Ameradian]

Frankly Clinton just svaed those forests. By 2100 the US will have a projected 572 million people--half that of China!!! If we do not freeze destructive intrusive human activities (and 4X4 is one of them) then you children will have not have much of anything to enjoy. They may have to hike in but at least it is there.

 

[Sled Puller]

This is to you guys that think Clinton is "saving" those forests.
It has nothing to do with protecting Mother Nature.
It has everything to do with controlling people and pushing them back into the cities where they can starved .
You think hiking will still be allowed? NOT.
So, I guess the next lightning strike that causes a million acre forest fire, we should just let er go, eh?
Let Mother Nature have her way! Let her BURN!

Man does more good for forests than bad. FACT. NOT HYPE.
Gene

 

[illflem]

Gene,letting the fires burn for the last 100 years is exactly what we should have done. What's happened since we started controlling wildfires is that it's allowed fuel to accumulate making it so that when a fire does get going it burns hotter and gets out of control. If the fires burn at closer intervals the fires will usually stay on the ground and just scorch the bottoms of the trees,not killing them but cleaning up the dead fall that would have fueled an inferno. Forest managers have finally figured this out and now try to do controlled burns during times when the weather doesn't allow the fire to get out of hand. Makes for a healthier forest.

 

[tmacc]

What most people don't realize is that the Forest Service is responsible for installing the roads for the lumber companies. The "stump fees" (the fees that the lumber co. bid per tree when a particilar wooded parcel comes up at auction) that the lumber companies pay the forest service don't come anywhere close to covering the cost of road building. Therefor who do you think is paying for those roads? Us. I'm not trying to beat on the lumber co. Right now they are in a world of hurt due to the imorted pine that is coming in from Chile. Yeah, that crooked crap you see at Home Depot. The Canadian lumber co. use to pay about 1/4 the stump fees that the US co. which put them in a more competitive postion. Furthermore, alot of the good lumber is shipped overseas to foriegn plants and then shipped back to us as furniture and nick-nacks. Most third world contries do not allow raw lumber to be exported, I'm talking about logs now, but we do. Japan buys most of the log off the Tongas Nat. Forest in Alaska. Thats to keep their inefficient saw mills running. If we banned raw log export, that would mean more job for US loggers.
Well, I'll stop ramlbing now. I love the outdoors and I hate to see all the clear cutting that I've seen out west. I think that there is a compromise though. Teddy Rosevelt (sp) did a wonderful thing for the contry by establishing Yellowstone. Maybe Clinton got a little carried away, but I don't see it as a way to force people back into the cities. Cooler heads will prevail. It does frost my cookies that we are now banned from some existing roads and trails, but for the time being I don't think we are going to miss the new roads in the 10% of virgin forest that we have left in this contry. OK you can flame now.
Edit. Man I sure wish we had a spell checker.
OOPS. Had to edit it again. Thanks danandme
[This message has been edited by tmacc (edited 01-06-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by tmacc (edited 01-06-2001). ]

[This message has been edited by tmacc (edited 01-07-2001). ]

 

[danandamy]

No flaming, just confused. You say at the beginning of your post that they aren't banning existing roads but then towards the end of your post you say it frosts your cookies that we're banned from existing roads #ad

 

[Sled Puller]

Define "public lands" I will. Lands that you are allowed to fly over, but never set foot in.
illflem,
I agree, let em burn! But also let select cutting be done, and replanting. Trees are a renewable resource, they are meant to be harvested, not gawked at.
The federal Government has no legal rights to "own " land. But they keep getting more and more.

 

[moparguy]

illflem, well said.

 

[Champane Flight]

There are ways to harvest trees without clear cutting!I have a cousin that works for the NPS and he says they cannot afford or have the manpower to maintain the roads they have now. Let alone building new. Thanks to the cutbacks in the Regan era.

------------------
95 Dodge 2500 Luverne grill guard,headache rack,running boards and Amzoiled. Soon to be mildly bombed. 84 Dodge d-150, 318 Hooker headers,Edelbrok intake,mallory ignition,Carter Afb,Accel coil,and Custom dual exhaust. Boat,fifthwheel,motorcycles,and shop,job to support toys. Yuck...

 

[tmacc]

danandme,
Sorry, That Is confusing. I too, realized it this morning. I had read in the newspaper that they were banning new road only. Then I remembered that I had read a MTB magazine that some existing raods and trails were going to be closed. I should have gone back to edit it. I'll do that now.

 

[Sled Puller]

HC,
No flaming, just questions.
Raping the planet and manageing forests are two different things, agreed?
I come from a long line of farmers, and I cringe when I see clear cutting or Blacktop where woods or farmland once was.
I don't buy we are the cause of Global warming. This hunk of rock has been warming up for a long time before I used whipped cream! Ever heard of a little thing called the ICE AGE!!! Any thing we do won't make a difference, because the rest of the world justs laughs and keeps on polluting. Not an excuse, lets use common sense and keep our country clean.
I am somewhat anti nuclear.
I am anti-coal. I don't protest it, but I think there are better ways.
I am PRO water power.
I am PRO wind power,solar power, tidal currents, anything that is there should be used.
But the wackos don't want any of them either!
There is no excuse to STILL be reliant on fossil fuels!!
Do you agree with that?
See, no flaming!

Gene

 

[HC]

>Raping the planet and manageing forests are two different things, agreed?

Agreed. But you also say you cringe when you see clear cutting. I've never heard a representative of a company that was clear cutting that didn't claim they were just "managing the forest". Wolves will often masquerade in sheeps clothing. The subject of the original post was about managing a small percentage of our forests by not building new roads. "Managing" shouldn't mean every single tree and every acre is fair game for someone who wants to cut it, any more than it should mean every single tree is off limits.

>I don't buy we are the cause of Global warming... .

If you listen closely, scientists and climatologists are no longer even arguing about whether or not man is having an impact on global climate. The big argument now is about how big that impact is, and how many years before we trigger an irreversible change. 50? 100? 200? Even so, I respect the fact that this hasn't been proven to everyone's satisfaction yet, but my point is, are you so absolutely sure, that you are willing to bet the planet, rather than take a slightly more conservative approach and pass a few regulations while we continue to study the issue? I also think the environment has more capability to repair itself than some give it credit for, but I'm not so absolutely sure that Mother Nature can repair anything that I'm willing to bet the planet. Besides, Mother Nature sometimes repairs herself by making certain species go extinct; one of these days that could be us. There are some very interesting theories now about Easter Island that suggest that is exactly what happened there. They used up their resources, they lost the ability to escape, and they died.

>Any thing we do won't make a difference, because the rest of the world justs laughs and keeps on polluting.

This is one of the few points where I think we really might disagree. I believe what we do makes a difference for two reasons:
1) We already consume more resources per capita than any other nation in the world; so if we cut back the difference is felt.
2) The reason others laugh now, is because of #1. I experienced this first hand on a visit to South America - the locals resented American "interference" because we had already cut many of our forests and dammed our rivers to achieve our high standard of living; they quickly pointed out that Americans had no right to "preach" to them about not developing resources. We're trying to lead the world toward Democracy; let's lead them toward protecting the environment too!

>Not an excuse, lets use common sense and keep our country clean.
Agree!

>But the wackos don't want any of them either!
Agree; remember, I said the extremists always make it tough!

>There is no excuse to STILL be reliant on fossil fuels!! Do you agree with that?

Uh, sort of, but can I keep my Cummins just a few years more? It's soooo fun... . #ad

(and yes, I know this means I am weak and not practicing everything that I preach!)

>See, no flaming!

Agree! A very civil discussion. #ad

 

[HC]

Gee, it's been about 2 months since I got flamed really good, so I'm about due. #ad


Ameridan, tmacc, you may be outnumbered, but you are not alone!

When sailors of old set out across uncharted oceans, did they feast and eat like gluttons every night? No, they conserved resources, because although they hoped and expected to make landfall, they didn't know when. We're collectively sailing this planet of finite resources through barren space, and we'd better dang well conserve our resources because we don't know exactly when each new technological development will be available to save us from our past and present mistakes.

Environmentalists have the exact same problem as 4-wheelers. A few extremists have given the whole group a bad name, but thinking men will not condemn the entire group or ignore what they have to say because of the actions of those few.

All good decision making processes include risk and consequence evaluation, not just the "how do I benefit?" question. Why do we maintain airplanes more carefully than cars? The benefits (lower cost) of reducing maintenance are the same for either case, but the consequences are different.

Example #2: Global Warming, real or not? I happen to believe it is a legitimate concern. Many of you will disagree. Now let's review benefit/risk/consequences.
You're right, I'm wrong. Cost: A few more regulations, lower short-term profits for somebody, which means a few less luxuries enjoyed by us worker-bees.
I'm right, you're wrong: Reduced short-term profits partially offset by development of new technologies, and oh by the way, the planet continues to be a good place to live. Allowing the world climate to change is the ultimate in "playing with fire", I just don't understand why anyone is willing to take this risk.

Just a short political message from your friendly, sometimes radical, environmentalist. Now, how many of you would have ever guessed that I drive a diesel and am pro-Nuclear power partly BECAUSE I'm a "radical" environmentalist?

 

[BCFAST]

I still say, lets call all our people back home, close the boarders, kick out all them ferners and defend our shores from aggressors and demacrats!

 

[Sled Puller]

I don't mean to shut every thing down that burns oil!
I mean we should be to a point that if the Middle east has a war, we don't care. Not regulate our beloved smokers out of existence!
Instead of penalizing US, maybe we should give tax BREAKS to the guys with electric cars in the cities. Or who use mass transit.
The Feds never do things in a positive way, always negative.

I'm into damning rivers bigtime! I think every stream in the country should be damned to control erosion, have a water source, and generate power.

Local Loggers around here are very good at thinning properly. They want to come back in the future and get the next batch. Out of towners, you have to watch! They will cut it down flat.
All the more reason why locals should take care of their own, and the do-gooders and the Feds stay out of it!
I believe if given the chance, The TDR Members could solve a lot of problems! #ad


Gene