A
agavelvr
Guest
I think Jonathan pretty much answered this one.
When Did I Become Bad?
- Thread starter SinCityFJC
- Start date
- Status
I think Jonathan pretty much answered this one.
A
agavelvr
Guest
Posting work authored by somone else does not seem to be expressing your POV on the topic.
Hey, I just found the synopsis for this article….
An outstanding puff piece crafted to get the reader on the author’s side (not that there is anything wrong with that). Glossing over the history of our country & public lands system, adding the personal anecdotes of the noble & respectful outdoorsman. Written in generalities to stoke the passions of patriotism and land use rights. Ending with a baseless attack on “Wilderness”. Classic BRC.
Seriously though…
Recreational access is important. It is one of the many great things about living in the USA. Unfortunately, the BRC thinks this is a right, inscribed in the constitution or something. They think that public lands were exclusively set aside for their use, and expressly in vehicles. They view any attempt at closing land due to environmental damage, resource preservation, or wildlife corridors as a threat to their “rights”. They willfully ignore the importance of environmental sciences and ecology unless it directly supports their argument. If they can not find science to back their position, they find &/or create “science-like” propaganda designed to create an emotional reaction against environmental positions. They claim that land managers need an alternative designation to do their jobs effectively…tell me, what land managers have made a plea to congress for another land classification?
To me, the BRC represents a selfish group of recreational users which paint all OHV recreationalists in a very bad light. They specifically take issue with anything that illustrates any OHV activity in a negative light, even if it is true. They make false statements about the content of books like “Thrillcraft” and then say we all need to unite under a common flag or will be shut out by “land grabbers”, “eco-nazis”, or similar biased slur.
The BRC’s attempts to create a “Back Country” designation for public lands is NOT conservation. The BRC’s position on the “land needing management & access for equipment” is NOT conservation. The BRC’s goal is to maintain & promote vehicular access to all areas, sensitive or not. They cleverly shore up their position by saying access is needed for folks with disabilities, injured war veterans, and recently those poor nature deprived kids. There are members of the BRC who advocate creation of illegal trails, mapping them, and cataloging them in an attempt to maintain access to those areas…this is NOT conservation. I find the BRC’s practice of haunting internet forums and reposting their rhetoric offensive. They are not interested in a conversation or debate. Some of their members, such as our fellow Expo’rs Lance (1leglance) & Brian (SincityFJ), are quick to advocate the mission of the BRC. Oddly, these same folks will dodge public questions posted for them to answer and will not defend their positions directly. Simply saying things like “we need to find common ground”, “join the BRC and change it from within” is not sufficient in my opinion. I have no common ground with folks who attack Wilderness without understanding its purpose. I can’t join the BRC to change it from within…it is likely they would call me a ‘commie-pinko-enviro wackjob’ as they tarred & feathered me (those are the kinds of personal emails I get as a result of posting on Expo). These folks are only interested in furthering the BRC mission they are not interested in true conservation.
Clearly the BRC’s agenda is very political. I tire of the BRC & BRC member internet tactics of spoiling great forums such as Expo by using it to get their canned press releases to pop up in search engines, flooding sites with their pseudo conservation themes, and the ridiculous repostings which are done to get the message out but not hold the OP accountable for the content. I’m sure I’m in the minority here though. I keep hearing that Expo was supposed to be a cut above the rest. With all the chat about proper spelling and such, I guess I expected more in a conservation forum. Maybe this should just be reclassified as:
“Fireside Chat: Conservation”.
written entirely by me
stevenmd
Expedition Leader
I read and re-read the original post that started this thread. Without knowing the author, I understood his viewpoints without having to read between the lines. No where does he state he wants to let vehicles run wild nor does it imply such. I think you are reaching here.
I did not take the author's writings as stating he believes "wilderness" is wrong. He explicitly states "Wilderness designation is a failure..." The key word being "designation". Designation would refer to the naming (or allocation thereof) of a land as "wilderness".
Sure, one can pick apart little bits and pieces and interpret such as they want. When reviewing an op ed piece, as a reader, you have a responsibility to look at the piece as a whole and not pick bits and pieces to misconstrue the original intent.
Lately, I have seem way too many threads go wrong because people are unwilling to accept that someone else may have a different viewpoint. This has got to stop. There is no one right thought on any topic, not even expedition travel, overland travel, camping, vehicle choice, etc.
I did not take the author's writings as stating he believes "wilderness" is wrong. He explicitly states "Wilderness designation is a failure..." The key word being "designation". Designation would refer to the naming (or allocation thereof) of a land as "wilderness".
Sure, one can pick apart little bits and pieces and interpret such as they want. When reviewing an op ed piece, as a reader, you have a responsibility to look at the piece as a whole and not pick bits and pieces to misconstrue the original intent.
Lately, I have seem way too many threads go wrong because people are unwilling to accept that someone else may have a different viewpoint. This has got to stop. There is no one right thought on any topic, not even expedition travel, overland travel, camping, vehicle choice, etc.
A
agavelvr
Guest
Agreed.
However, reposting large bodies of quoted text while not engaging in discussion is not 'having a different viewpoint'...It is participating in the BRC's propaganda machine, dragging sites like EXPO down. I believe it is our duty as informed recreationalists to question the intent of these kinds of posts. I think it is our duty to question the purpose and intent of the BRC's Kickin' Access Technology (KAT)Team.
http://www.delalbright.com/Access/access_team.html
I think that we should be offended when they use shameful propaganda techniques to further their goals on this forum.
The BRC would like to have influence over Land Use and Conservation forums like this one. I thought a forum was best served by being free of influences such as this. To me, it is clear what the BRC's intent is with pieces like this thread. As a OHV enthusiast, the BRC is not doing me any favors and a lot of indirect harm.
So, "when did I become so bad" the author asks...perhaps when they began participating in a clandestine War on Wilderness or anyone else who disagrees with their beliefs. Just something to think about.
stevenmd
Expedition Leader
Jeff - I have never heard of BRC - are they like the "ACLU" of trampling our land rights? Just curious.
I hope my statements did not come off as brash. I just tire of the seeming increase of "you don't agree with me so you must be wrong" posts that are starting to plague this wonderful forum. Differing viewpoints can be made respectfully. I'm almost at a point of just avoiding the Fireside portion of the forum. Almost, but not quite.:ylsmoke:
I hope my statements did not come off as brash. I just tire of the seeming increase of "you don't agree with me so you must be wrong" posts that are starting to plague this wonderful forum. Differing viewpoints can be made respectfully. I'm almost at a point of just avoiding the Fireside portion of the forum. Almost, but not quite.:ylsmoke:
A
agavelvr
Guest
Steve,
Your statements didn't come off as brash to me. In fact, I have no personal issue with Brian either. The people who have been sending me private hate mail in response to my participation in these threads...I could care less about them.
I'll let you come to your own conclusions on the BRC
http://www.sharetrails.org/
Specifically, read their thoughts on Wilderness
See also link to the KAT in an earlier message.
The issue I have with this specific poster is the fact that he posts controversial material, authored by someone else, and then does not follow up with discussion. The thread then spirals into waste. Then he starts another thread and the process repeats itself. Oftentimes, these posts are filled with missinformation, propaganda, or rude language toward people who support the environment.
Never are the questions directed at the OP answered, though he continues posting new threads in a similar vane. He is not discussing the issue, just causing trouble. I guess that's fine and I should let it go, but I feel there is a community responsibility to hold this behavior accountable.
I'de rather be outside enjoying the wilds, but I am stuck doing a bit of work inside today. Expo used to be a place I would go to learn about cool people and places on break from the work. Lately, I have been baited into these threads. Lessons learned I guess.
stevenmd
Expedition Leader
eepwall:
teotwaki
Excelsior!
Where I see "wilderness" designations as a failure is when an existing Federally designated area such as a National Forest, an area that is already in public use, already has roads and trails is then cleverly bisected by a "wilderness" designation of a key portion of that area. That bisection causes the original beginning and end of the trail to become disconnected, trail use by mountain bikers or vehicles drops off and next the "wilderness" is expanded to take over the whole area.
The Endangered Species Act, the NEPA process, Forest Plans, etc. offer existing protection to many of these areas and effectively prevent exploitation and unsustainable activities.
Last edited:
teotwaki
Excelsior!
-------SNIP
I'll let you come to your own conclusions on the BRC
http://www.sharetrails.org/
Specifically, read their thoughts on Wilderness------SNIP------
After all of the noise I thought that I'd discover what their evil plan was and only found bland things like this that seem like plagarism of the Sierra Club's goals
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
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
Since Lance asked, I'll try to provide some sort of synopsis on my position regarding vehicle-based recreation versus wilderness. But it's impossible to do in fewer than 50,000 words, because the subjects really can't be explicated with the sound bites that some here have tried to use.
First, it should be obvious from the fact that I co-founded a magazine devoted to vehicle-based expedition travel that I love 4WD vehicles and motorcycles. I own three of the former and one and a half of the latter. That in no way prevents me from also cherishing wilderness, any more than liking Bass Ale prevents me from also liking Johannesburg Riesling. I'm weary of the assumption that one has to choose a loyalty to one or the other.
4WD owners scream about road closures, and conveniently like to attribute them all to those evil “enviro/socialists,” as someone right here just described people such as myself. Wrong. Most road closures on public lands are the result of, a) budget cuts, and, b) illegal roads. The U.S. Forest Service, to name just one agency, is decommissioning thousands of miles of inventoried roads because it simply doesn't have the money to maintain and police them. If you want to know which administrations are responsible for cutting the most out of the USFS budget, go look it up. If I listed them here it would tip this discussion over into politics.
Illegal roads. Are they created by enviro/socialists? No; they're the result of irresponsible 4WD and ATV and motorcycle owners. Think it's a tiny percentage? Wrong. Here's the result of one study, in Montana:
In 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks received survey responses from 446 owners of registered off-road vehicles. Among the full sample of respondents, 23% “always or sometimes” ride cross-country even though off-route riding is against the rules in Montana and has been since 2001. Over 28% “sometimes or never” avoid riparian areas and wetlands, in violation of rules for federal and state public lands in Montana.
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehicle while hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding cross-country — over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downed game.
And those are just the ones who admit it. I could put up the other studies I have, but trust me, they're the same.
These results have been duplicated in other states. Irresponsible use of 4WD vehicles is not marginal, it's epidemic, and growing with the number of people buying, especially, ATVs, who have absolutely no sense of wildland stewardship or ethics. Many of them truly believe that driving those things cross-country does no harm; many more of them just don't care. I deal with this issue every day outside my front door. Every day. All it takes is one moron to cut a trail where there wasn't one. The next guy comes along and sees the tracks, “Hey – there's a trail!” And before you know it there is one. And then after a year or two or ten, when a land agency closes it, guess what? Yep, it's those evil enviro/socialists at it again. My wife and I have worked on the ground closing illegal roads, and will do so again. They're bad for the landscape, and bad for the reputation of 4WD owners.
So. Are you concerned about losing access to 4WD trails? Then do two things. Vote for an increase in the USFS (and other land agency) budgets, and fight irresponsible vehicle use. Quit blaming it on “enviro/socialists.”
Wilderness. I'm not sure how to approach this, because, truly, I can't comprehend the mind of someone who can't appreciate the concept of places where vehicles simply don't belong. If someone were to say to my face, “Wilderness designation is a failure,” I'd probably just walk away, because I will never be able to hold a civil conversation with that person, any more than I could with someone who tells me, “All four-wheel-drive vehicles should be banned.” Each statement is equally blind and self-centered—and wrong.
Ninety five percent of all the land in the U.S. is not wilderness. To me (and, I need to add here, a majority of the American voting public), that's a sad legacy of what we were granted by God and nature when we colonized this place. So, yes, I believe that our meager remaining lands that retain viable wilderness potential should be given the opportunity to be protected as such, including lands that might have a road or two in them which could be closed, if the benefit to the habitat and wildlife is strong and public support is there. (On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to have land managers carefully consider new roads in areas devoted to vehicular recreation, again if the situation and public support warrants.)
Wilderness doesn't “lock up” the land. However, wilderness designation does put the welfare of the habitat and wildlife above our own recreational convenience. That's in the original blueprint for the Wilderness Act, and I believe that mandate speaks highly of us as a society. There are plenty of wilderness areas I'll never have the opportunity to visit, but I'm happy knowing they're there. It cuts the anger I feel when I walk out in the morning and find yet another set of tire marks scarring the desert. (Then again, you want to see me really angry, be with me when I find the border fence to a wilderness area cut and vehicle tracks headed right on in.)
Are there problems with wilderness designation, and with some wilderness proposals? Spare me. Of course there are. But those problems are specific, not conceptual, just as are the problems with selfish vehicle owners. Don't agree with me that we could use more wilderness? Okay. But claiming that wilderness designation is a failure marks you as just as much a fanatic – and just as problematic for those of us trying to balance use with conservation – as those who claim that vehicular access is a failure. Those people are all part of the problem, not part of the solution.
First, it should be obvious from the fact that I co-founded a magazine devoted to vehicle-based expedition travel that I love 4WD vehicles and motorcycles. I own three of the former and one and a half of the latter. That in no way prevents me from also cherishing wilderness, any more than liking Bass Ale prevents me from also liking Johannesburg Riesling. I'm weary of the assumption that one has to choose a loyalty to one or the other.
4WD owners scream about road closures, and conveniently like to attribute them all to those evil “enviro/socialists,” as someone right here just described people such as myself. Wrong. Most road closures on public lands are the result of, a) budget cuts, and, b) illegal roads. The U.S. Forest Service, to name just one agency, is decommissioning thousands of miles of inventoried roads because it simply doesn't have the money to maintain and police them. If you want to know which administrations are responsible for cutting the most out of the USFS budget, go look it up. If I listed them here it would tip this discussion over into politics.
Illegal roads. Are they created by enviro/socialists? No; they're the result of irresponsible 4WD and ATV and motorcycle owners. Think it's a tiny percentage? Wrong. Here's the result of one study, in Montana:
In 2006, Montana Fish, Wildlife and Parks received survey responses from 446 owners of registered off-road vehicles. Among the full sample of respondents, 23% “always or sometimes” ride cross-country even though off-route riding is against the rules in Montana and has been since 2001. Over 28% “sometimes or never” avoid riparian areas and wetlands, in violation of rules for federal and state public lands in Montana.
Sixty-four percent of those surveyed have used an off-road vehicle while hunting. The majority of this hunting subset admits to riding cross-country — over 58% have traveled off of legal routes to retrieve downed game.
And those are just the ones who admit it. I could put up the other studies I have, but trust me, they're the same.
These results have been duplicated in other states. Irresponsible use of 4WD vehicles is not marginal, it's epidemic, and growing with the number of people buying, especially, ATVs, who have absolutely no sense of wildland stewardship or ethics. Many of them truly believe that driving those things cross-country does no harm; many more of them just don't care. I deal with this issue every day outside my front door. Every day. All it takes is one moron to cut a trail where there wasn't one. The next guy comes along and sees the tracks, “Hey – there's a trail!” And before you know it there is one. And then after a year or two or ten, when a land agency closes it, guess what? Yep, it's those evil enviro/socialists at it again. My wife and I have worked on the ground closing illegal roads, and will do so again. They're bad for the landscape, and bad for the reputation of 4WD owners.
So. Are you concerned about losing access to 4WD trails? Then do two things. Vote for an increase in the USFS (and other land agency) budgets, and fight irresponsible vehicle use. Quit blaming it on “enviro/socialists.”
Wilderness. I'm not sure how to approach this, because, truly, I can't comprehend the mind of someone who can't appreciate the concept of places where vehicles simply don't belong. If someone were to say to my face, “Wilderness designation is a failure,” I'd probably just walk away, because I will never be able to hold a civil conversation with that person, any more than I could with someone who tells me, “All four-wheel-drive vehicles should be banned.” Each statement is equally blind and self-centered—and wrong.
Ninety five percent of all the land in the U.S. is not wilderness. To me (and, I need to add here, a majority of the American voting public), that's a sad legacy of what we were granted by God and nature when we colonized this place. So, yes, I believe that our meager remaining lands that retain viable wilderness potential should be given the opportunity to be protected as such, including lands that might have a road or two in them which could be closed, if the benefit to the habitat and wildlife is strong and public support is there. (On the other hand, I'm perfectly willing to have land managers carefully consider new roads in areas devoted to vehicular recreation, again if the situation and public support warrants.)
Wilderness doesn't “lock up” the land. However, wilderness designation does put the welfare of the habitat and wildlife above our own recreational convenience. That's in the original blueprint for the Wilderness Act, and I believe that mandate speaks highly of us as a society. There are plenty of wilderness areas I'll never have the opportunity to visit, but I'm happy knowing they're there. It cuts the anger I feel when I walk out in the morning and find yet another set of tire marks scarring the desert. (Then again, you want to see me really angry, be with me when I find the border fence to a wilderness area cut and vehicle tracks headed right on in.)
Are there problems with wilderness designation, and with some wilderness proposals? Spare me. Of course there are. But those problems are specific, not conceptual, just as are the problems with selfish vehicle owners. Don't agree with me that we could use more wilderness? Okay. But claiming that wilderness designation is a failure marks you as just as much a fanatic – and just as problematic for those of us trying to balance use with conservation – as those who claim that vehicular access is a failure. Those people are all part of the problem, not part of the solution.
Last edited:
1leglance
2007 Expedition Trophy Champion, Overland Certifie
Wow Jonathan that was exccellent...thanks..
I really wish I could convey my position as well as you do.
I am new to the 4wd world, I previously have alot of experience working against motorized access because I didn't need it or want it.
However once I bought a 4wd and saw how it increased my access to areas I had given up on visiting (couldn't hike them any more) I felt that the movement to close roads that already are in place is excessive. That said I do agree that sometimes people are their own worst enemy and we HAVE to close some areas....just let it be the fewest possible.
If there are no roads in place then go right ahead and clsoe it to motorized access.
So in a nutshell...if there ARE roads let's try to keep them unless we absolutely have to.
If there are NOT roads then keep motorized access out.
Anyone that runs with me knows I will stop and talk to someone who is abusing the land. I believe in personal responsiblity and walking the talk. Hey the 2007 Expo Trophy on the return trip there was the family shooting on an open range that was very dangerous. They were fine with a quick positive chat.
Picking up trash, meeting with land managers, doing SOMETHING is better than nothing.
The wilderness designatin vs backcountry...well that is not the heart of the problem.
The real problem is the apathy by the majority of people, apathy to get involved, apathy to talk to someone abusing the land, apathy to post to threads (even this thread really only has a tiny % of the total Expo memebership).
I agree with posting your own thoughts (with supporting info from sources cut & pasted if needed).
I agree that we have to stop land abuse.
I agree that there is a solution but it won't please everyone.
I agree that there isn't enough money so we should do everything possible to help out with trail cleanup, education, maint, survey and more.
So again in case anyone isn't sure of the Disabled Explorers & my personal position.
If there are not roads then close it.
If there ARE roads then keep it open unless you absolutely have to close it and then reopen as soon as possible.
Again great post Jonathan and I think we are closer than we are apart....I just can't seem to say it as well.
I really wish I could convey my position as well as you do.
I am new to the 4wd world, I previously have alot of experience working against motorized access because I didn't need it or want it.
However once I bought a 4wd and saw how it increased my access to areas I had given up on visiting (couldn't hike them any more) I felt that the movement to close roads that already are in place is excessive. That said I do agree that sometimes people are their own worst enemy and we HAVE to close some areas....just let it be the fewest possible.
If there are no roads in place then go right ahead and clsoe it to motorized access.
So in a nutshell...if there ARE roads let's try to keep them unless we absolutely have to.
If there are NOT roads then keep motorized access out.
Anyone that runs with me knows I will stop and talk to someone who is abusing the land. I believe in personal responsiblity and walking the talk. Hey the 2007 Expo Trophy on the return trip there was the family shooting on an open range that was very dangerous. They were fine with a quick positive chat.
Picking up trash, meeting with land managers, doing SOMETHING is better than nothing.
The wilderness designatin vs backcountry...well that is not the heart of the problem.
The real problem is the apathy by the majority of people, apathy to get involved, apathy to talk to someone abusing the land, apathy to post to threads (even this thread really only has a tiny % of the total Expo memebership).
I agree with posting your own thoughts (with supporting info from sources cut & pasted if needed).
I agree that we have to stop land abuse.
I agree that there is a solution but it won't please everyone.
I agree that there isn't enough money so we should do everything possible to help out with trail cleanup, education, maint, survey and more.
So again in case anyone isn't sure of the Disabled Explorers & my personal position.
If there are not roads then close it.
If there ARE roads then keep it open unless you absolutely have to close it and then reopen as soon as possible.
Again great post Jonathan and I think we are closer than we are apart....I just can't seem to say it as well.
Colorado David
Explorer
I enjoy and appreciate areas that I can only reach on my own, carrying a backpack. I also enjoy the use of four wheel drive vehicles. They are not an either/or decision. I fully support Jonathan's position. As much as I love four wheel drive and it's responsible use, I simply don't want to see or hear one when I am backpacking in a Wilderness area. So many problems with land use could be alleviated if people would simply take on the mantle of responsible steward rather than selfish user. I'm not pointing any fingers here and fully expect that the ExPo members fit the former monicker. However we are in the minority. We have all seen or seen the evidence of irresponsible users. There is only so far that land use stewardship evangelism can go before it requires the weight of regulation.
Jonathan Hanson
Well-known member
Lance, you are the uber-master of both community involvement, and the polite behavior modification of total strangers.
I should add to my earlier comment: I'm not just in favor of more wilderness; I'm in favor of more public land, period. Wilderness, National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, Wild and Scenic River, National Seashore, BLM - It's all good.
I should add to my earlier comment: I'm not just in favor of more wilderness; I'm in favor of more public land, period. Wilderness, National Park, National Forest, Wildlife Refuge, Wild and Scenic River, National Seashore, BLM - It's all good.
- Status
