Re: Please Clarify... Thread from below
Posted by BF Morris on May 20, 2002 at 21:06:40:
"Question: What do you think that these eco-kooks’ aims are?"
Loss of habitat is a cause, but it is not the only cause. Some species have much habitat and yet decline due to natural causes. I'm not proposing taking all the habitat away from the animals. I'm proposing that the existing dirt roads be left alone and no new roads paved in or to the national parks. I want existing roads through wilderness areas left open. Fine, protect the land from other development. (such as whatever it was that was "threatening" these rugged remote desert mountain tops before they needed saving) I disagree. Laughingly, most of these wild areas were created in the last ten-twenty years. The areas look just the same as before they were declared off limits. Except for the private property owners that have been forced off their lands.
I think these groups and persons have clearly stated what their goals are, no need to waste time on that. It is more interesting to explore their view point's etiology. Why do these people arrive at these conclusions, and why the preponderance of biased unfactual data that seems to permeate, such as "evolution interrupted"? I believe the answer to the first part of my question derives from a generally misanthropic outlook in their personal lives. (I'll bet they made up the bulk of those who bought into the "Y2K" scare too) Certain people tend to blame mankind for all of what they perceive as earth's ills, and of course hold him apart as being an unnatural fixture on this planet. Two examples are an unfrequented 100 year old desert trail and "rising" Co2 levels in our atmosphere. Any serious scientist will tell you that there is ample evidence that wildlife does coexist with unfrequented dirt roads. As for Co2 you better thank your lucky star that there is enough of it floating around to keep the ice away. Speaking of which, how much damage did the ice do last time it came down (due to reduced Co2 levels I might add) from the north? Now there is an exmaple of incredible ecological damage that wiped out most of a continent, all done by someone other than man
Now, I think paved roads have an impact worth writing about; specifically paved roads like the kind they end up building to and through every new national park. Conduits for millions of visitors. Why not leave a park's roads as they were in the beginning and thus leave it's lands an adventure to visit? Why all the silly interpretive signs and paved areas containing "visitors' centers" complete with trash dumpsters, trash and ravens? Why all the eysore T-posts driven across every wash and the gazillions of fiberglass signs flapping in the wind? Why do Park rangers need all those guns in their trucks? I saw one with two rifles and a shotgun plus a pistol. Lethal law enforcement should be the responsibility of the county, not Barney Fife park rangers driving around acting tough. Interestingly, the same people answer these questions as saying we need all these "improvements" so that everyone has fair access to the park's lands. Otherwise, only persons with 4wd vehicles, for example, would be able to visit the lands. Ironically, these people then turn around and lock *everyone* who does not have a good pair of hiking legs out of millions of acres. This sort of two-faced legislation goes to my point of biased, unfactual datas. And their propensity for ursurping others' belongings during the process.
" What is wrong with holding a bio-region’s health above our right to drive through it?"
Everything. First, the presence of or driving on a dirt road cannot send an area's health into a tailspin. Second, the perspective that leads to this sort of thinking goes to the "misanthropic blame it all on man" outlook I mentioned earlier. Thus the underlying biased data which says a road is a disaster. Balderdash.
"I think we can all agree that when a plant, insect or animal population is dwindling its habitat is in jeopardy."
"I still contend that without the presence of these environmental groups, California's wild areas would be in much worse shape."
Have any environmnentalists made sacrifices such as losing their land? What should the environmentalists sacrifice for the good of the cause? I suggest they all band together, every man jack of them, and stop using any form or product of cumbustible energy for the next twenty years. A relatively small jesture of helping our planet.
BF Morris