Identify Your Enemies - How are Enviro/Eco Groups Funded?

[Rockhounder]

Hikers hike, bikers bike and wheelers...well, we wheel.

We all can share the same surroundings but when people lose patience with others Mother Nature seems to take a back seat to hard feelings and vented anger.

I've been out in Death Valley many times. And in all those times I've only seen one true hiker (no vehicle anywhere in site). We tried talking to her and offering her water, etc. but she didn't make eye contact and kept on going. Something about being out in DV by yourself (and being a woman) may have led her to keep her distance.

The point is the world belongs to all of us. Many take care of it; some do not. Most don't get off the beaten track; some do. How we get there shouldn't matter as long as we take care of it.

PS: I shop at REI and I'm not "an outfitted type in a hybrid Honda" :bike_rider:

REI is great, just in my opinion a little overpriced. I try to hit their quarterly "returns/ blems" sale as I can get good deals then on great gear.
The Civic hybrid group (two guys with that rock climber look, and two girls) had a big REI sticker in the back window(right next to about 5 or 6 older fading obama stickers.) All were wearing the rock climbing pants you can get at REI (the ones with those extra padded bits on the legs and butts). I'm guessing they went somewhere to rock climb, and the area was crawling with the omnipresent wagon circles of the off road yahoos types.

 

[Todd Ockert]

At the end of the day, we all want to enjoy the open lands for our respective types of recreation.
We need to respect each other and their forms of recreation.
If we close the lands to one or two forms of recreation, then we are making it an exclusionist type of recreation.

It is called public lands for a reason!
Lets keep our public lands open for everyone to have fun and enjoy the outdoors.
We all have individuals within our respective recreation types that leave trash. We need to educate them about picking up after themselves. Pack it in, pack it out!

Todd

 

[Christophe Noel]

Hey Todd,

Please take this query at face value and not a provocation of any kind. I genuinely want to know, does the BRC ethos provide latitude for the allocation of public lands without inclusion of wheeled access of any kind? I sense that BRC advocates for unrestricted access wherever possible.

 

[Todd Ockert]

BRC Mission, Vision and Values

If you check our Mission, Vision and Values here:
http://www.sharetrails.org/about/mission-vision-values
Also copied below.
We have done most of our work lately with work to keep motorized recreation access available.
We have not had any requests lately to assist with access for water, hiking, mountain biking and horseback riding in a while.
All forms of recreation are important to use at the BRC.

Mission

The BlueRibbon Coalition champions responsible use of public lands and waters for the benefit of all recreationists by educating and empowering its members to:

Secure, protect, and expand shared outdoor recreation access and use
Work collaboratively with natural resource managers and other recreationists
Educate the general public, media, elected officials, and other decision makers on recreation and access issues
Promote equitable and responsible natural resource management
Affect the political and administrative process
Support recreation on, and promote respect for, private property
Encourage appropriate enforcement of the law
Vision

The BlueRibbon Coalition is the leading national coalition of organizations, businesses and individuals that:

Provides leadership in responsible use
Promotes balanced resource conservation
Is recognized by the general public, the media, and elected officials as the leader in promoting common sense and an equitable approach to recreation and access issues
Values

Tolerance
Equity/Fairness
Equal Access Opportunities
Resource Ethics
Shared Use
Common Sense
Cooperation
Honesty/Integrity
Resource Stewardship
Education
Responsible Use
Heritage/Culture
Respect

 

[Christophe Noel]

I have read through those mission statement bullet points before, and laud you for those efforts. Tough work to pursue. Am I wrong in thinking that the BRC strives to achieve total wheeled access where feasible? Is there any latitude for advocating for land protection for the sake of it, or is the general sentiment that all public lands should be made accessible to users by any means under the auspices of "public land."

 

[Todd Ockert]

We have on many issues collaborated with all stakeholders, and supported wilderness in some cases.
Usually it has been to also provided motorized access in another area and the compromise has been achieved.

Glamis is a perfect example of collaborative work and compromises.
A huge section was reopened to motorized access, while another section was closed to motorized access in the compromise.

In a few of the wilderness proposals, we have asked for the current trails to be cherry stemmed to continue use, but with the wilderness areas on either side.
Thus not allowing more trails or open access to the area.

I hope this clears up your concerns.

Todd

 

[Scott Brady]

It is our responsibility to maintain access to the wild places of the world, but it is also appropriate at times to keep a roadless area roadless. It is not just about our enjoyment, but that enjoyment being ensured for future generations. I am thankful for our National Parks, UNESCO World Heritage Sites and even most wilderness areas. For clarification, I am talking about an existing roadless area being allocated as wilderness. If there are key recreation corridors through the proposed wilderness area, that right of travel should be maintained.

It always comes back to reasonable allocation of public lands. There are places worth saving from even a single tire track, just as there are wonderful overland routes worth protecting access to.

 

[dstn2bdoa]

This thread should have been titled " How Reading Comprehension Drops When People Get Emotional"

It seems things are getting better now but I bet some here might edit their comments if they went back and carefully reread the posts they were commenting on.

I think the one thing everyone can agree on is... No matter who you are, climber, hiker, biker, or wheeler we need to pick up our trash and leave the area we recreated in nice for the next users and those that don't, need to be educated.

 

[jeepndel]

BRC Position Statements (Wilderness)

These are taken from the BRC website (About BRC) where you can read all our "position statements" -- where we stand as BRC on most anything. These are just three.
##

Wilderness

The BlueRibbon Coalition supports the designation of Wilderness in areas that truly meet the characteristics identified in the 1964 Wilderness Act, and where obvious evidence of human development, such as roads, does not exist and has not existed. We also support management of Wilderness areas for the use and enjoyment of the American people as required in the Act.


Wilderness Crowding

The BlueRibbon Coalition recognizes that some areas in Wilderness are overcrowded resulting in a decrease in the quality of the Wilderness experience. However we also recognize that virtually all of this overcrowding occurs within a relatively short distance from trail heads and access points. To resolve these problems, BlueRibbon Coalition recommends a policy of establishing use quotas, redirecting visitors or improving access into less crowded areas.


Backcountry Designation

The BlueRibbon Coalition supports the establishment of Congressionally designated backcountry where motorized use can co-exist with mountain bicycles and other recreational uses as well as other management activities while still preserving the backcountry character of the landscape. One major attraction for OHV enthusiasts, and others, to public lands is the primitive, backcountry character of much of these lands. The BlueRibbon Coalition supports the preservation of this backcountry character, where it exists, and supports continued motorized access into these areas. The Forest Service planning process is a dynamic and transient process; therefore congressional designation is needed to preserve these areas.
##

Hope this helps,
Del

 

[goodtimes]

goodtimes, seriously? You are a Moderator here and you are not ensuring "in context" arguments and replies? It was not me who started the "mouth breather" comment about off-roaders who trash our environment or who portray bad behavior. My entire KEY point was for all of us to continue to educate fellow users of public lands; that we must be vigilant in our conservation education efforts. For goodness sakes, let's stay in context unless you have a prejudice you just can't get past. In the "About You" part of your public profile here you describe yourself as "smarter than a bag of hammers -- but not by much." Would you feel good about someone taking that out of context and calling you a hammer-head?

Yes, seriously.

You sandwiched two specific user groups (mountain bikers & hikers) between a couple of derogatory statements. I responded to that group of statements & the general idea that they portray. If your intent was to include all "off roaders" in those derogatory statements (as your subsequent post implies), why specifically mention hikers & mountain bikers, but leave motorized user groups out of it? When I read your post, it comes across as a thinly veiled attempt at casting blame on hikers and mountain bikers while specifically failing to assign some of it to motorized user groups.

As to my description of myself being smarter than a bag of hammers, its called self deprecating humor. But I'm sure you already knew that.

If you're trying to draw a link between the self deprecating humor in my profile and the statements that you made about mouth breathers and granola munchers, and it appears that you are - then should have established yourself as part of the group(s) you were talking about. But you didn't, so it comes across as a cheap shot at hikers & bikers. If you did establish yourself as a member of those groups & I missed it, well, you've already read my profile, so there you go.

Now don't get me wrong. You've earned certain amount of respect from me for the work that you've done & the reputation that you've established. But when I read comments like you made last week, it makes me wonder if you (and by extension, the BRC) & I are really on the same page. Sure, my comments lacked any sort of sugar coating, but I'll stand by them. I re-read your post this morning, and my evaluation & opinion of your statement has not changed. It comes across as a cheap shot at a group that you claim to support.

Since we haven't had the pleasure of meeting each other in person, I'll go ahead and throw a general comment out. If you and I are *not* on the same page with regard to access rights, that's OK. Differing viewpoints & open minds make for interesting conversations.

 

[mapper]

As we all know, while sitting at out computers dreaming of future "expeditions". Simply knowing this open space is out there and available for visitation by the average Joe is what is important.

NOT everyone who wants to be "out there" "using" the land has the time or ability to be there regularly. That, however, doesn't mean their wishes are irrelevant or their investments in stewardship any less meaningful. If you were somehow stuck living life in a large Eastern city, for whatever reason (family, job change etc.) you'd want to know there were places to escape to that are being protected. Public lands are part of our national heritage and they have intrinsic value beyond the resources they produce.

The land doesn't all need to be "used" for something. Open space is more and more scarce every day. Republicans are actively trying to dispose of Federally Lands and using as bargaining chips for accelerated resource extraction on other Public Lands.

Yes, it is important to "know your enemies". IF you enjoy recreating on public land, your enemies just might not be who think they are. It is also important to know when you are being played a fool.

 

[MagicMtnDan]

As we all know, while sitting at out computers dreaming of future "expeditions". Simply knowing this open space is out there and available for visitation by the average Joe is what is important.

NOT everyone who wants to be "out there" "using" the land has the time or ability to be there regularly. That, however, doesn't mean their wishes are irrelevant or their investments in stewardship any less meaningful. If you were somehow stuck living life in a large Eastern city, for whatever reason (family, job change etc.) you'd want to know there were places to escape to that are being protected. Public lands are part of our national heritage and they have intrinsic value beyond the resources they produce.

The land doesn't all need to be "used" for something. Open space is more and more scarce every day. Republicans are actively trying to dispose of Federally Lands and using as bargaining chips for accelerated resource extraction on other Public Lands.

Yes, it is important to "know your enemies". IF you enjoy recreating on public land, your enemies just might not be who think they are. It is also important to know when you are being played a fool.

Oh good, now this thread will take a turn for the better. Now that generalizations/political accusations have been made.

 

[plainjaneFJC]

As we all know, while sitting at out computers dreaming of future "expeditions". Simply knowing this open space is out there and available for visitation by the average Joe is what is important.

NOT everyone who wants to be "out there" "using" the land has the time or ability to be there regularly. That, however, doesn't mean their wishes are irrelevant or their investments in stewardship any less meaningful. If you were somehow stuck living life in a large Eastern city, for whatever reason (family, job change etc.) you'd want to know there were places to escape to that are being protected. Public lands are part of our national heritage and they have intrinsic value beyond the resources they produce.

The land doesn't all need to be "used" for something. Open space is more and more scarce every day. Republicans are actively trying to dispose of Federally Lands and using as bargaining chips for accelerated resource extraction on other Public Lands.

Yes, it is important to "know your enemies". IF you enjoy recreating on public land, your enemies just might not be who think they are. It is also important to know when you are being played a fool.

Or when you are a fool. Come up with some original thought.

 

[mapper]

Oh good, now this thread will take a turn for the better. Now that generalizations/political accusations have been made.

When you live in a state where the Governor, with strong party affiliation, openly declares “environmentally sensitive energy and mineral development” the “highest and best use” for some of the areas frequently traveled and daydreamed about within the pages of this site (San Rafael Swell, SE Utah in general, including the prized Cedar Mesa) and you, personally, frequent those areas and see roads being closed for “environmentally sensitive energy and mineral development” (North Slope of the Uintah) and landscapes trampled to oblivion by cattle (hiking/camping along the San Rafael anyone, it's lovely how the filtered water still smells of manure)? It becomes much easier to quit mincing words.

You may know that Utah has also sued the federal government because it didn't "hand over" all public lands, excepting some National Parks, a few National Monuments and a few Wilderness areas, to state control as of December 31st, 2014. The proposed funding of this "land swap" financial feasibility, in the state's own documents, is contingent ENTIRELY upon money collected in mining, oil and gas extraction royalties INCLUDING those royalties normally submitted to the Federal Government...In other words, contingent upon selling off significant tracts of land that is currently public. It doesn't matter what kind of user you are when the extractive industries put a road closed sign you are "locked out". When the 2 track roads turns into a widened, oiled, gravel highway (San Rafael Swell) your "backcountry" experience might be affected.

I do commend Gov. Herbert on his honesty, even if I don't agree with him.

User group pressure is building here and ready to boil over. As far as generalizations/political accusations are concerned, this thread "Identify Your Enemies" in reference to "Enviro-Eco" groups, was damned from the original title. Come here to visit and explore while you can.

 

[dwh]

The radical environmentalist movement represents a small fraction of outdoor recreationists, yet it makes steady gains in its agenda. This is a result of massive funding. Not the funding from annual dues paid to Sierra Club, but six and seven figure anonymous donations from a handful of foundations and individuals. This money finds its way to various "astroturf" front groups operating under the guise of popular support. These astroturf organizations are little more than a webpage.

Democracy at its finest.....a million dollars is worth a million votes.

The article linked below contains information on this practice. I focuses on the Hewlett Foundation, Redstone Strategy Institute and Western Conservation Foundation.

SOURCE: Range Magazine

AUTHOR: Dave Skinner

ARTICLE LINK: http://www.rangemagazine.com/features/winter-15/range-wi15-identify-your-enemies.pdf

Finally got around to reading that .pdf. It's a good article, and well researched.

But he failed to note that the process he's describing is known as "Manufactured Dissent", which is similar to "Manufactured Consent" but works to co-opt and control the opposition.

In essence, the manufactured dissent strategy makes use of three key tactics:

Control the money.
Control the dialog.
Divide and conquer.


There is an excellent article, originally published in 2010, which describes how the strategy works in a larger context (i.e., it's not used to control just environmental groups):

http://www.globalresearch.ca/manufa...ement-is-funded-by-the-corporate-elites/21110



The divide and conquer tactic works in two ways:

A) Keep the opposition groups focused on their differences. That prevents them from coalescing into a single unified threat.

B) Separate the leaders of the groups from the rank-and-file, by "inviting" the leaders to mingle with the money men and have "discussions about the issues". That shifts their focus from being radical reformers, to being moderate collaborators (this also supports the tactical goal of "controlling the dialog").


This very thread contains excellent examples of "Example A" at work.


I think it's also important to keep in mind that these billionaire foundations don't make their money by protecting the environment. They make their money by investing and avoiding taxes. In other words - the profit motive. They don't give a good goddamn about the environment. Their objective is to de-fang any opposition - so they can keep making their money by not giving a good goddamn about anything except profit.