Wilsons Sandbox

In a message dated 5/28/00 6:06:41 PM Canada Central Standard Time, DSN_klr650@egroups.com writes: > Why is it, that every time a motorized recreation supporter speaks openly about organizing, defending, and promoting our sport.........those that are pro-environmentalism get up in arms? Do they actually fear the prospect of having public land decisions made by the actual public? Are motorized recreationalists such a massive force that the thought of us organizing strikes fear into their hearts? Interesting!!! ;-0 Personally, I have no problems with honest, informed, and equally applied concepts of environmentalism. The problem is, there are very few environmental groups that are willing to listen to "ALL" the facts or compromise for the benefit of all. When one group draws the line in the sand, the groups (s) on the other side are forced to retaliate by attempting to erase or break up that line drawn in the sand. If environmentalists weren't so extreme in their official policies and applications, and if they were more open to compromise, then we wouldn't have to clash with one another. After all, we offroaders don't want the forests, canyons, valleys, summits, rivers, creeks, lakes, and vistas destroyed. If they were, then the beauty of our sport would be gone for most of us. But do the environmental activists realize or support this concept? No way. We are the enemy of environmentalism, even though we are not. I used to be a Sierra Club and Green Peace supporter. In fact, I am an eagle scout, former member of the order of the arrow, and finally a scout explorer. I was involved with conservation, and environmentalism since I was a baby. In my adult years I have seen these noble concepts twisted and malformed to serve the narrow minded viewpoints of a certain sect of our society. The truth is that offroad enthusiasts have been forced to defend themselves and fight back, because of the efforts of the current environmental movement. I for one, want my children to have the right to ride in the same open spaces and forests that I enjoyed riding in. If this means that I have to right letters, attend meetings, donate money, etc., in order to protect these rights, then I will. If environmentalists want to attack my hobby because I am an easy, unorganized target with little money to fight back. Then I will become a member of a larger group. It would be nice if we could work together, but I don't see any environmental groups reaching out with an olive branch. Jim Sherlock PS. If you think its "Balderdash" then I suggest that you research Clinton's current land grab attempt in Southern Utah. You might also want to learn how many millions of acres, that used to be accessible to offroaders, In California, that were closed down by the efforts of Diane Feinstein, Barbara Boxer, and President Clinton. Open thine eyes and you shall see the light.

Sherlock Holmes wrote: After all, we offroaders don't want the forests, canyons, valleys, summits, rivers, creeks, lakes and vistas destroyed. If they were, then the beauty of our sport would be gone for most of us. The problem here is the 10% among us who feel it is their right to ride anywhere, anytime. I am a KLR rider and a backpacker; one who seeks out the remotest sections of our parks on solo hikes, way off-trail (GPS and cell phones are for the impotent). When I find detergent foam in a very remote lake I get steamed and feel that something has been violated. Even areas hard to reach and protected by law are degraded by man. I have seen bikers rip up areas solely to leave tracks in pristine earth. Designated riding areas exist, but noooooo, these guys have to be the first to put gouge marks in the ground. Got to be the first. The deeper the better. Make it last so that the world can see that they've been there. It is because of these types that we concientious riders are being legislated out of areas to ride. It only takes a handful of these thugs. The Sierra Club and Greenpeace aren't your greatest danger. In fact, these groups may be of assistance in getting more areas designated for OHV specifically, in order to keep us out of other areas that are more suited for non-motorized vehicles. You only know the other side of the argument if you walk in the other shoes. How many on this list bitching about the Sierra Club have put a pack on their back and hiked 120miles in nine days in protected wilderness? I'll tell you it is a glorious experience. If motorized vehicles were permitted in these areas it just wouldn't be the same. We need both kinds of recreation. The kind were we live with the barest of necessities, hearing nothing but the lake lapping at the rocks and the wind through the pines, and the kind were we can roll-on that throttle and roostertail the dirt to the moon if we want to. Take some Sierra Club members on a responsible ride and we may gain an ally for our cause. Most of them I doubt have ever ridden a motorcycle, let alone a dirt bike. To bash them won't help us one little bit. If you really want to breathe fresh air, enjoy forests, creeks, mountains, vistas etc. etc. and don't want these areas ruined, keep your motorcycle where it belongs: In the garage. If you want to have a mechanized, motorized blast or crawl through the woods or desert, stick to the designated area. Oh, and it really pisses me off that the arrival routes to the Bay area airports pass directly over Yosemite National Park, so that the wonderful silence of the night is interrupted every 5-10 minutes until after midnight. As an airline pilot I KNOW that those routes could be altered with minimal added fuel consumption. Funny how the Sierra Club is quiet on this issue. Must be they like their air service in San Francisco. Fire Away!! (especially the Viagra-popping GPS/Cellphone crowd) In Jest, Scott Blakney ________________________________________________________________________ Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com

>The problem here is the 10% among us who feel it is their right to ride >anywhere, anytime. > If motorized vehicles were permitted in these areas >(wilderness) it just wouldn't be the same.

I never see motorcycles in the wilderness. I have never heard of a viable challenge to current wilderness designations. Where is this "social problem" occurring?

>To bash them won't help us one little bit. >Fire Away!! >(especially the Viagra-popping GPS/Cellphone crowd)

I guess everyone uses a little "Verbal Viagra" once in awhile... Tom

In a message dated 5/29/00 4:51:56 PM Canada Central Standard Time, DSN_klr650@egroups.com writes: > Come on now. A KLR is a motorcycle. A Dual Sport Motorcycle. The key words here are Dual Sport. Inferring in most cases, offroad usage. (Although there may be some submersibles in works that we don't know about.) Anyway, being a rider of a Dual Sport bike makes you a member of a family of much larger participants. People like mountain bike riders, quad riders, dirt bike riders, jeepers, truckers, etc., are all part of your family. If we want to protect, support, and promote our family, then public land usage for your motorized recreation is your responsibility as well as mine. Whether you are on the "green" side, "motorized" side, or just plain "in between", it is everyone's right as well as responsibility to keep informed and to express their viewpoints to others. We don't always have to like each others ideas or viewpoints, but we have to respect them. That is part of being an American, let alone a reasonable human being. Knowledge can only lead to more knowledge. Ignorance can lead to tragedy. Besides, lighten up a little. Yeah, this a KLR list. But I'm sure that many people, including myself, welcome the occasional comedic satires, political debate, bench racing stories, among others, from time to time. Sprockets, chains, suspensions, and the like is fun discussion and provides good information. But geez, it needs to be broken up once in a while or it just gets boring to read. Hope you all enjoyed your mini vacation. Time to get back to the work world tomorrow. Good night. Jim Sherlock