closures

dunerking

Well-Known Member
Posts
309
Reaction
0
I just do not get it,with the growth of the sport that we all love why would people confine the little bite of space that we still have to enjoy.For the last 12 years that I have been going regularly to Glamis the amount of people going there has doubled(at the least)but yet the tree huggers want to restrict the amount of land we can enjoy,it sseems to be the opposite direction they should go.Why now this sudden interest?That land next to it is used for bomb testing why not worry about the try destruction of that land or are those land safe bombs they are dropping.Just a little venting,just that with all the people starving in L.A. alone seems like there are bigger issues out there instead of some damn weed.

hit it hard
 

JrSyko

Jerry Maguire
Posts
7,888
Reaction
1,600
I don't think that the environmentalist, no matter how hard they try, are going to get the U.S. military to stop using the area for bombing runs. That is why they target the off-roaders, it is a lot easier to restrict their use than the U.S military. Plus, we help their cause by looking like idiots every Presidents Day, New Years, Halloween and Thanksgiving. I know it is not all of us, but unfortunately, we all get lumped into the same category.

See ya in the dirt!
 

mustafa

Well-Known Member
Posts
885
Reaction
40
Then nature nazis were successful on Vieques Island in Puerto Rico. They are in the process of stoping the bombing now.

He who lives by the sword, gets shot by those who don't.
 

Rodney

Well-Known Member
Posts
132
Reaction
0
Duner- you are exactly right. It is good to see you are fed up. Now do something about it by joining the blue ribbon coalition. Other pro access groups are good too, although the BRC is really starting to carry some weight in washington. Even if you can't afford to give much, every little bit helps. Peace.

Winning IS everything
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
That's exactly what I've been saying, too! There are much more valid environmental issues that they choose to ignore. The New River, which runs from Mexicali and eventually discharges into the Salton Sea, is so polluted that law enforcement personnel cannot enter it without first donning personal protective clothing. In other words, it's not only an environmental hazard, it's alos a human health hazard. When the Louisiana Health Department issued a fishing advisory in the Calcasieu River about mercury contaminated fish, the local shrimping industry went bankrupt. Livelihoods dependent on the fishing and restaurant industry were at jeopardy, and the sensitive ecosystem within the estuary was at risk. Where were these so called environmentalists? Why don't they want to address true environmental issues? They're misguided focus on closing taxpayer funded public lands from the public raises the credibility of their environmental ideals when they ignore the much bigger and more valid environmental concerns.


Ed Q.
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
I must respectfully disagree on the Vieques issue, my friend. Vieques used to be a tropical paradise until it started being used for target practice. (Vieques is a U.S. Territory) It's kind of like using Kauai, Key West or Catalina Island as target practice. Granted, the military needs to practice and train, no question about that. I'm 100% in support of our Armed Forces and our country's ability to maintain the best military readiness possible. Heck, I admit I'm guilty of the "not-in-my-backyard" (NIMBY) mentality. Do the target practice, but do you have to do it there? Pick some island off the coast of Iraq, Iran or some place like that to target practice. Why mess up one of our own tropical islands that used to offer excellent fishing, snorkeling and babe-in-bikini watching (no offense to the ladies out there - y'all can do the hunks-in-trunks watching)?

But back to the main topic at hand. I forgot to mention that by targeting off-road recreational activity, the so called environmental groups ignore another, more pressing environmental concern - urban sprawl development. Now I'm all for real estate development and making a profit. Unfortunately, I'm too poor to ever invest millions in real estate development in the hopes of making tens of millions in profit. But if these so called environmentalists really cared about their cause, they should focus their attention on tax incentives and grants to encourage re-development of abandoned property, formerly contaminated industrial sites, etc. All that money they spend on targeting a family recreational activity could be more wisely spent, in my opinion, on preventing sprawl that threatens the reduction of the habitat they claim they care so much about. Instead of lobbying for land closures, they should lobby local and state tax authorities on tax breaks for redevelopment. There are a bunch of contaminated sites that are abandoned eyesores and health problems that no one wants to invest in. Rather than graze pristine habitat to build another Wal-Mart or shopping strip, they could clean up an abandoned lead-smelter or wood-treating facility and redevelop the property. This will increase the local tax base and keep the pristine habitat un-touched.

Just my humble, uneducated, opinion on the matter.

Ed Q.

Ed Q.
 

Paige

Well-Known Member
Posts
946
Reaction
0
Yeah the New River is disgusting - i Can't believe that they haven't focused on that POS but they are bound and determined to save a weed in Glamis.

There is much more going on here with the land closures than meets the eye - more than saving habitiat...at least that is my opinion...I have seen the emails coming from these groups looking for species in off road areas so they have an excuse to go for closure.

I think they could also look at what is happening in China and some other countries with the e-waste that is generated in industrialized nations and supposedly "recycled" That is pretty bad too!

<font color=yellow>Paige<font color=yellow>
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
The new river is called that because it is exactly that, a new river that formed when Mexicali started flowing efluent down hill. Some of the folks here are hitting it on the head, it has nothing to do with species recovery as much as social control of the publics access to public lands. The mantra of the mainstrean greens has gone from go be involved with nature, fish, hunt, explore to leave only footprints, take only pictures. They actually have guidelines that mandate you carry your poop out from areas you hike in because they feel that any influence by man is a bad influence in nature. It has become a religion to them and unfortunately, the federal Gov't (under Bish, no less) is beginning to see their actions as religious in tone and are looking at protections under the freedom of religion banner.
For every species that Corva, the ASA, BRC, etc... fight and overcome in court, the other side just files another suit to list another animal with the intention that they will lock up public lands associated with that animal until a court makes a decission(usually not based on science, but on a settlement reached by the greens and a green friendly federal agency like Parks Service, Forest Service, etc...)meanwhile the land has a temporary closure that restricts pretty much all activities that were taking place prior to the suit, so a de facto closure is in affect, giving them a temporary victory against OHV, etc... It is about Politically Correct lifestyles according to them, whether you like it or not. They know best and they are willing to sue their way to control.
Enough of the rambling, but I am considered an antichrist to the Green Gaia religion because I think we should have to right to access.

Martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
Very good point, Paige, about looking at other countries. I've never been to China, but I've heard the environmental consequences of industrialization in some parts of that country mirror what happened in our country and in Europe during the industrial revolution. Of course, none of us were alive during the industrial revolution, but from the material I've read, the pollution was pretty bad. You'd think these so called environmental groups would focus their energy on that instead. I'm at a loss trying to understand their constant, seemingly exclusive persecution of a recreational activity whose effects on the environment pale in comparison to what's going on in other countries trying to play catch up with us.

I think we all agree that irresponsible off-roading can cause damage to the environment. But these groups misplace the blame on a recreational activity as a whole, instead of on the few, bad irresponsible apples that cause the destruction. So their strategy is to throw the baby out with the dirty water and to waste all that money and effort to reach that misguided objective. If they would readjust their priorities, they could lobby for adequate enforcement against the bad apples and focus their attention on the more pressing environmental needs, like doing something about the New River for instance. And if they're so concerned about diversity of wildlife and protecting endangered species, then why don't they focus on one of the biggest factors affecting that issue - sprawl development?

The e-mails you saw discredit their credibility as valid environmentalists. Is their true objective to protect endangered species or to end off-roading? But why? From the e-mails you've mentioned, it sure sounds like the latter. Who implements the Endangered Species Act? Is it the Fish and Wildlife Service? If these groups are lobbying the FWS, has anyone shown them these e-mails? That should help show their true bias and ulterior objective, which taints whatever claims they may be making on the relationship between off-roading and the supposedly affected species.

More uneducated opinion on my part. Take care,


Ed Q.
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
Hi Martin,

Social control sure sounds like it to me. The e-mails Paige saw sure lend credence to that. What is this Green Gaia religion? Is it some kind of "harmony with nature" philosophy of theirs? I don't mean to suggest that a certain philosopy or "religion" (if you can call it that) automatically puts into question any scientific claims made by a group espousing any such philosophy. But you would have to take into consideration any bias the group may have if it submits what it claims to be scientific data in support of any lobbying efforts on its part. It may be that their philosophy/beliefs have tainted the data to support their beliefs.

I remember Border Patrol and local Sheriff's deputies telling me how drug traffickers would sometimes float their drug loads (mostly cannabis) along the river at night. They told me that traces of the polio virus, among other diseases and ailments, were detected in some of the water column samples. Man, can you imagine the guys that end up smoking that stuff, not realizing it was floated along that river?

Take care,


Ed Q.
 

mustafa

Well-Known Member
Posts
885
Reaction
40
Ed,

I only mentioned Vieques because Jrsyko had stated that enviromentalists would never be able to stop the military from conducting bombing practice. They have proved
to be very successful with their vigilance. I agree with about new locations for bombing runs. Let's use downtown Baghdad. There are now American on their way over to
Iraq to become human shields.


He who lives by the sword, gets shot by those who don't.
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Ed- the new religios ideals are based on the "Mother Earth" principal. They are actually beginning to win support saying that no damage should be done and that a roll back of approximately 50% of development should occur. They call it "re-wilding" and believe that man should be rounded up and sent to Urdan Centers with travel corridors between them and everything else in between should be wilderness. There is a plan right now that allows federal funds to go to religions in the name of environmental conservation, so it is kind of a ruse to fund the green initiative with federal money in the name of religion. I too am against sprawl because it not only destroys the previous ecosystem that was in place, it also eliminates the land we can recreate on. More should be done to redevelop what we already have to make it more liveable and desirable for occupation instead of casting it aside in the name of more suburbs.

Martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
I understand what you're saying now about Vieques and military bombing. I remember when I was working for INS in the Imperial Valley that there was an issue with Border Patrol enforcement along some sensitive areas of the border where there were endangered species. But how can the Border Patrol protect the borders when a group of 100 people cross without inspection in one of those areas?

So Americans are actually volunteering to become human shields in Baghdad? I heard something about anti-war human shield volunteers, but I didn't know Americans were actually signing up for that. What's with those people? We've shown great restraint and patience with a regime who has committed atrocities against its own people and during the war against Iran, and and we now have a chance to finally dismantle his weapons of mass destruction, but instead the rest of the world thumbs its nose and abandons us.

Take care,


Ed Q.
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
"Re-wilding" and "travel corridors"? Man, I've never heard of these extreme views. Anyway, I heard about funding for religious groups. Is this under Bush's "faith-based charities" deal? If so, I think it was originally meant to help non-profit religious organizations, like Churches for instance, provide charitable care for the less fortunate. But I can see how other "religious" groups can easily twist the original intent to fit within their own designs, no matter how far off base.

Ed Q.
 

EQuin

Well-Known Member
Posts
1,276
Reaction
16
Here's an interesting article that appeared in the Wall Street Journal:

The following editorial appeared in Tuesday’s Wall Street Journal.
Wall Street Journal Editorial, January 21, 2003
“The Color of Clean Water”

The EPA is finally enforcing the Clean Water Act with the most powerful green force known to man: money. New policy rules, issued last week, will allow industrial plant owners to pay unregulated polluters not to pollute.

It's called water quality trading, which a dozen states have experimented with to good effect. The EPA is now taking this burst of free-market logic national, which promises to clean up waterways better than the diminishing returns of command-and-control regulation. Shoveling cash into additional water treatment technology is increasingly expensive, and in any event doesn't solve the problem of pesticide run-off from farmland.

"There's evidence that along the coastline we're losing ground," Bruce Yandle of George Mason University's Mercatus Center told us. There's a "dead zone" at the mouth of the Mississippi River, possibly caused by nutrient overloading. A similar problem plagues the Chesapeake Bay. And almost half of the rivers and lakes tested reveal too much pollution, notwithstanding 30 years of EPA diktats.

So EPA officials are now sensibly going to look for ways to make cleaner water profitable by allowing local governments, businesses and others to "trade" their pollution rights in a way that produces less costly but broader cleanup. Instead of imposing expensive technology mandates, cleanup plans can now include the option of paying Joe Farmer to keep his cows out of the local creek, or plant grasses for a "riparian buffer zone" that stops pollution from washing into the waterway.

North Carolina, for example, has already been using the power of the almighty dollar to solve a nutrient buildup problem in the Tar-Pamlico River basin. The problem isn't the water treatment plants--all of which met permitted discharge limits even while dead fish were washing ashore in 1989. "The loadings from agricultural activities were just too large all by themselves," says a recent Mercatus study.

Thanks to trading, the Tar-Pamlico basin is meeting nutrient reduction goals on or ahead of schedule and for less money. Nationwide, the Clinton Administration put the annual savings in cleanup costs at somewhere between $658 million and $7 billion.

It all makes so much sense that even some professional environmentalists like it. The World Resources Institute, for one, calls it "win-win" for the environment and economy. On the other hand, the Sierra Club, the National Wildlife Federation, and the Natural Resources Defense Council are all in their familiar outrage mode. The "poor" and "minority communities will bear the brunt of this misguided policy" because they are the "least likely" to be able to resist "corporate polluters," avers the NRDC's Nancy Stoner.

Of course they will sue. But notice how little substance there is to that NRDC critique. It's merely a political soundbite dragging in race, class and Big Business. Opposition to even something this reasonable exposes just how partisan the NRDC and Sierra Club have become. They are assailing the Bush EPA even though the first "Draft Framework" for a national trading system was issued by the Clinton Administration in 1996. Clean water matters less to Ms. Stoner than does teeing up an issue for the next election.

A far more reasonable criticism focuses on the possibility that "hotspots" of concentrated pollution will develop around some industrial plants or cities, even as total water quality improves. But the EPA isn't going away, and neither are its overall water quality standards. Local communities will also have a strong hand in developing any trading system for their watersheds.

Fresh thinking in government is so rare that it deserves to be saluted, especially when it can help produce fresher water.


Ed Q.
 

martininsocal

Well-Known Member
Posts
22,828
Reaction
5
Ed- do a search for The Wildlands project or CalWild and see what thsi is all about. Believe or not, this is a State Fubded program by Joe Davis and his regime in California. YOu can also find lots of info under Resources, State of California. Mary Nichols, the head of Resouces constantly touts the Wildlands project and even Davis was spouting of about the 550 thousand acres he has saved since he took office. This all bought abd paid for with taxpayers dollars.

Martin

If your gonna go, go BIG
 

dunerking

Well-Known Member
Posts
309
Reaction
0
Just getting old first it is a weed yesterday now today it is some beetle what tomorrow it save the sand.I'm a member of the ASA and give time and money whenever possible.Tough trying to talk friends into supporting these causes.They love to enjoy these great places but won't do much in the way of helping out to keep them.DAMN all I work for is to go out and ride.

hit it hard
 

dunerking

Well-Known Member
Posts
309
Reaction
0
I think we should start the church of open public land use,last I checked this country used to be called the land of the FREE.

hit it hard
 
Top