Thanks for steppiing in, Rep. Humor is fine, but the baiting had turned a bit juvenile.

I agree that strong voices for the environment are essential. Many regions of the former Soviet Union, and nowdays China, where dissent is crushed and the rulers ignore the wishes of the people, have become environmental wastelands. In our country, it wasn't industry or Congress (as a whole) that led the way for clean air and water reforms, but noisy and determined citizens that dragged the government into taking action. And the fight is not over. To borrow from a well-known quote, the price of a clean environment is eternal vigilance.

WOW!!!! really?!?! We are now comparing the desire to simply ride and enjoy scenery to the " environmental wastelands " of Russia and China ??? I don't think anyone wants to turn any place into a " wasteland ".... and they would fight to keep that from happening...they just want to be able to enjoy the beauty and wonderment that is here for all of us.... Not to lock it away and not let anyone there... How did that turn into " environmental wastelands " ??? Really ????

H

Calm down, historik. If you take the time to read my reply closely, you will see that I did not refer to, or even mention, the stale OHV/anti-OHV argument. Rather, I was looking at the bigger picture that Reptilist described. Something we all might want to consider from time to time....

Ok, everyone , please stop for a moment, take a dep breath of air and relax.

Now, lets look at a couple of things. First. I truly believe that everyone in here wants to preserve our public lands. We ALL want the lands saved for our kids and great-great-great grand kids to enjoy. We all can agree on that. What and where the differences lie is how we manage the lands we have today. sal and people like him want to keep the lands as prestene as possable, and restrict usage to a minimum. (if I am wrong on this, please enlighten me) It seems to me that sal and others, see the use of OHVs on public lands as a intrusion of un-natural forces on the lands and need to be regulated or removed from public lands management. I do not agree with sal, not because of his desire to restrict outlaw OHV owners, but because all sall can write about is rogue riders and the need for a better way to identify those riders. That and it seems to me at least, sals only answer to these issues is more restrictions and denied access to public lands for use by OHV riders. I do not see any other responces at all.

I believe that we can answer the call for protecting our public lands, deserts, mountains and other places through a ballanced multi-use management plan. In my vision we would allow OHV use on designated roads, trails and ways. I would go after with everything I had the outlaw or rogue riders and penilize them for their thoughtless actions. I would have areas set aside for complete protection allowing only hikers access. But those areas would have to have unique and special needs and features. I truly believe we can have a ballanced method of multi-use on our public lands.

As far as "environmental wastelands", honestly how can say the entire country of Russia is that? Yhat place is huge. You could drop the entire USA in there (land wise) and have a ton of land left over. Yes that place has major problems, but there are a lot more places we would consider as prestene wilderness.

Anyway. I am calling a truce for all of us in here to try to find ways we can live together and still find ways we can agree to disagree on how to use our sacred publics lands together.

Mike

Speaking of the environment in general, NOT the stale OHV debate:

Mike,

If you don't believe my statement about environmental wastelands, you might want to take a look at this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-1DNjJd2YfA) or, if you have a strong stomach, this (http://www.gerdludwig.com/html/stories_soviet.html). Then maybe you'll see the kind of thing I was talking about.

I'm NOT saying you or anyone else don't respect the environment. But speaking generally, everyone says they respect the environment, just like everyone says they respect mom and apple pie. I once sat in an audience and heard James Watt, of all people, say he loved nature and described himself as an environmentalist. We know how that worked out. The point, I guess, is to judge by actions, not words.

My last words on this thread.

I will totaly agree with you spiny that there are places of incredable destruction and environmental damage. In this country we have some terriffic places of environmental wastelands. I will never agrue with that. NEVER. However having said that I do not accept that OHV use causes these sites. Thank you.

Mike

I don't get the correlation, you mentioned the wastelands of China and Russia, but according to the links you provided, those are caused by air pollution and mining. Which is surely a killer and is unbelievably horrid, gives one post-apocalyptic visions... But I can't see that ever happening out in the desert areas that we are talking about. If I am missing something please let me know.....

H

Exactly my point historik951. Thank you.

Mike

OK, I'll try this ONE last time.

I never claimed that OHV use would result in the kind of wastelands I described. Indeed, I never mentioned OHVs at all. Although the same stale, endless OHV debate dominates this forum, not all environmental issues need to be viewed through the OHV prism.

Instead, what I DID say, referring back to Reptilist's point, "the landscape would have been rendered a wasteland for everything else if not for the resistance of environmentally friendly people who are pushing back," is that we need people that advocate strongly on behalf of environmental causes. I don't agree with everything Sal says, but he has a right to say it in this forum as long as it's owners and moderaters allow. In that respect, I think Reptilist is doing a good job and he was right to step in.

Personally, I think the opposition to the solutions of environmental groups would largely go away if they practiced just a few well-reasoned and advisable restraints:
1. Avoid attempting to paint all other uses as damage, claiming that even a single rock or pile of sand that is altered constitutes environmental degradation. A handful of squashed bugs isn't species extinction, erosion isn't necessarily all human-caused or necessarily bad, and a trail doesn't necessarily constitute destruction. A little common sense goes a long way here, as opposed to extremist political rhetoric.
2. Avoid using your complete control to dictate uses of public lands, owned by the public, as the only solution to all of what you term as "problems". It exposes an agenda way beyond "protection of sensitive lands". Have more compromised solutions.
3. When your "solutions" aren't acceptable to the public or their representatives, filing endless lawsuits to force compliance with your wishes doesn't win you many friends. You would do well to understand that enacting legal end-runs through the court system is an egregious mis-use of our legal system. You are attempting to dictate policy through a branch of government which is supposed to be interpreting laws, not creating them. Work within the Constitutional framework our founders set up, and you'll get far less opposition.
4. Stop using endless lawsuits simply to earn legal fees to fund even more lawsuits, under EAJA and ESA. If you don't want to do this willingly, it may be forced upon you in the constitutionally-correct way: http://tucsoncitizen.com/view-from-baja ... al-groups/
5. And finally: Stop claiming impending catastrophe and disaster if all your demands are not immediately and completely met. While it may produce short-term gains in the minds of your faithful, and win a few non-critical-thinking converts to your cause, your long-term credibility will eventually suffer permanent damage. Be a bit more reasonable and realistic (and less arm-waving and hysterical sky-is-falling ranting) in your assessments, your assumptions, your advocacy, your activities, and your proposals, and more people will believe you. You will likely get far more done than pushing people to the point that you are obviously manipulating their ignorance.

You have the right to put humans and our liberties at the bottom of the priority chain if you wish. Just don't attempt to force those views upon the rest of us, and we'll all get along much better.