Protester showed disregard for environment

Ed Bond


November 02, 2002 — 2:24 a.m.
Around the first of September, a young man who refused to reveal his real name, climbed a pine tree, which was near the Pacific Crest Trail in Sierra County. He said he was protesting the harvesting of trees on private land and was claiming that the environment and natural beauty adjacent to the Pacific Crest Trail needed to be protected.
The tree he chose to nest in was on land owned by Sierra Pacific Industries and was included in a timber harvest plan approved by the state of California. The trail is on an easement our company has granted across our property to the U.S. Forest Service for the enjoyment of those who hike the trail.

What is so hypocritical and disingenuous about this trespassing tree-sitter is that when he decided to come down from the tree in mid-October, he left a garbage dump on the very trail he was claiming to protect: buckets of his own human waste, decaying food, sheets of plywood (what do you suppose was the source of the wood fiber in the plywood?), foam padding, a sleeping bag, ropes and other debris. In all, he left an ugly mess to spoil the scene for hikers on the trail.

This protester, who did a very dangerous thing by climbing to a perch high in the tree, was willing and able to take his supplies and equipment into the area to protest, but was unwilling to do so when he left. He and his supporters showed their true concern for the environment and for the condition of the trail by the waste they left behind.

Most Californians, including those of us in the forest products industry, have a much higher standard of forest stewardship than that which was demonstrated by the hypocrisy of this self-proclaimed defender of the environment.


Ed Bond is a spokesman for Sierra Pacific Industries in Anderson.

Saturday, November 2, 2002

http://www.redding.com/news/speak/stories/20021102speak057.shtml

See, If he was driving his off roader, it would have been much easier to "Pack it out".

we need to plaster this all over the place!




:usa:

I called SPI and talked to the author. He sent me a picture of the crap this guy left behind. You can see it here: http://www.crowley-offroad.com/protester_showed_disregard.htm

I have tried to put the image here, but it comes up way too big.

This also ran in the SacBee last week as a letter to the editor.

Jon

That's just disgusting, and pathetic:mad:

WTF? I pack out my trash and treat the areas I go into with caution and I am an enemy of the earth according to groups like this one this moron was part of. Yet he trashes it and acts with total disregard and he's saving the earth? Gimmie a break. I am so sick of the Greenie double standard I could scream. I swear a lot of the groups who claim to be saving nature seem to be some of it's worst enemies.... :mad:

Its a beautiful thing;) Finally a greenie extremist showing his true colors. Wanting the attention protesting gets you without an idea of what you are protesting. The guy is a moron its just like greenies in Berkeley who flick cigarette butts and say we destroy the lands.

here's the pic, what a fawking scumbag....I hope someone is billing him for the removal and treatment of hazardous waste and rehab of the forest or something:mad3:


http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/uploads/ProtesterTrash-1.jpg


:usa:

resized

Messy, true. No argument there. If it saved the forest from being logged I'd asy it was a minor issue though. What I always wonder (and I can't really point fingers here because I'm nor sure who it is) but WHY DO BEER CANS SEEM SO MUCH HARDER TO CARRY WHEN EMPTY? Seems like the number one garbage on the trail is empty beer cans and bottles. Up side is that they are easy to pick up and remove (unlike human waste)

Victor, the point I think is not wheter it was "worth the damage to get the point across" , but is to show how hypocritical the so called "environmentalists" are..... I think we need as much publicity form this as we can get, just as the greens use the less than one percent of OHVers screw up against us....


theres no excuse for leaving that crap anywhere and this needs to be exploited to our benefit as much as we can.....


:usa:

Yellowsub,
I expected some reaction to my comment and you are the one who seems to be spearheading the anti environmentalist sentiment here, so maybe we could engage in some intelligent dialog rather than mocking the immature actions of some sophomoric people who have idealistic goals and are sloppy in their behavior. Firs of all, I have more respect for people who ARE idealistic rather than selfish.If the goal is to save the forest for its own sake than to simply want the right to play there, I would say that the goal is unselfish and compassionate. I completely agree with desire that all of us offroaders have for access. This is a desire, not a necessary need. We enjoy it, it is our recreation and so we lobby for it. No argument from me. What does disturb me is that this desire on our part seems to make us villify those who would fight to allow the wild lands to remain wild. It becomes a political argument about private property verses government protection. When I bought my Jeep it was with the goal of being able to get deeper into the mountains/forests/deserts than I could on foot. To enjoy nature and experience unspoiled land. I didn't realize that I was then required by the off road "community" many of whom I highly respect, to switch from the desire to preserve wildlands and become pro development. It seems like a contradiction to me. While many greens are sophomoric idealists who have a ways to go to learn about having their shit together and perhaps act before thinking it all out, at least they are axting from compassion to save wildlands, not simply to fight every action to do that in order to play in the same wildlands (until they become the new strip mall!)
I share the desire of everyone on this board for access to trails, but I also share the desire to preserve the wildlands that make it possible to HAVE trails rather than paved roads, and more development. That is my point here.

Victor,

Everyone off-roader I know that is involved in land use cares very deeply for our land. Protecting our access while also protecting the resource is vitally important if my kids are going to enjoy the same things I enjoy today.

That is why I not only fight for our access, but also organize and participate in cleanups and trail maintenance.

Unfortunately, there is a segment of the population that either does not care or is uneducated about protecting the environment. These people are not just off-roaders that throw trash out their window on the trail. They are the same people that throw trash out their windows on the highway. These idiots are everywhere.

Jon

Can't argue with you there, Crowdog.y point is just that garbage, while a visual issue and unsightly may be more of a PR issue than the actual change of the land. Unfortunately it seems to me as if people use litter as a way to make other people look bad. Litter does just that, it looks bad. But it is a much more important issue to prevent the destruction of wildlands for profit. Who gets to decide whether it is necessary is the political question. The right says that if it is your property then it is up to you, the left says that it is not enough to own property, but you still need to be a good neighbor. While on a personal level I agree that I would prefer less rules regulating my personal behavior, I also believe that when a corporation (not just an individual) gets big enough and rich enough to impact the rest of us without our ability to resist that, then we need government regulations to step in to keep them under control.

Environmentalism is not bad in and of itself -- many of us consider ourselves to be conservationists and environmentalists.

Uninformed support of environmentalism is lame -- and what I actively fight is the general assumption that 'greenies' care more (or DO MORE) for the land than I do as a wheeled recreationist. I've been out on the trail 4 of the last five weekends doing trail maintenance and conservation (selfish, eh?), and other than BLM or Forest Service representatives, I have seen *NO* greenies there. Lots of environmentalists, though, all driving 4x4s, many with local, state, and national club affiliations.

I'm not trying to say that all environmentalist/greenie types are bad -- that isn't true. What I *am* trying to say is that we're all in this together, and that I respect other folks' form of recreation and would like them to do the same. When it comes to the far-flung excesses of 'deep environmentalists' like this tree-squatter, I'll call a spade a spade. He may profess to be an environmentalist, but his actions show him to be a trespasser, a litterer, and a vandal, and I'd LOVE to see him prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law. I won't dismiss his actions as 'immature, sophomoric, or idealistic,' though I'll accept 'sloppy.'

I have more respect for people who ARE idealistic rather than selfish.
It comes down to ACTIONS to me. The general populace is easily swayed by the 'environmental' words that greenies pull over themselves as a feel-good shield, and needs to look further towards the action and results of self-proclaimed 'environmentalists.' This tree-squatter's lasting impact is one of localized damage. That ain't too green. :(

As for us villifying them? That's *RICH* -- have you looked at their ad campaigns lately? We're mechanized destructionists! :mad: Apply that metric to both sides evenly.... and when you're done, come back and let's talk about how presenting factual information about littering, trespassing tree-sitters is villification.

I didn't realize that I was then required by the off road "community" many of whom I highly respect, to switch from the desire to preserve wildlands and become pro development.
:shaking: If there's no middle ground between those two extremes in your mind, then you're screwed. Why not aim for status quo (or something close to it) of maintaining our existing access, instead of closing it all or developing it all. You're asking for an intelligent discussion and saddling it with silly extremes! I want to be able to hike and fish in the backcountry, and I can do that right now (status quo, remember). What alarms me is the trend to outlaw the vehicular means of access to ALL areas.

Randii

Randii,
you have some valid points, but I don't see this as a middle ground vs extremist issue. Unfortunatley we have two entrenched camps that should be on the same side that see each other as the "enemy". That is where there needs to middle ground. As far as the staus quo goes, i don't believe that to be realistic. Nothing stays the same. In case you haven't noticed there seems to be a great deal of aggressive development going on in most parts of this country. What I am trying to seperate in peoples minds is the esthetic isue (garbage is ugly, 4wheelers are noisy etc.) from the more fundamental issues of development vs conservation. We need to see the difference between those of us who enjoy the wild areas with no intention of damaging, changing or altering them (hikers, wheelers, recreationalists etc.) from those who would choose to alter the land for profit. It makes me happy that there is no "Rubiconland" theme park. That the trailhead is not filled with businesses catering to all the needs a 4wheeler could want. In short, it has not been made into another Yosemite. Lets keep it that way and show the authorities that this is the way that we like it. Thats my real issue. I am neither Republican nor Democrat because neither group agrees with my sentiments. I would just like to see the tread lightly, leave no trace ethic become the norm and therefore we can become examples for environmentalists , not their opponants.

I'm all for open discussion in this forum, thats what it's here for. In fact I wish we'd have more of them...All discussions in this forum will remain adult and courteous discussions or the violators will be dealt with accordingly. There are no exceptions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------


Victor, while I respect your opinions and comments, and agree witha few - I'm going to have to disagree with a few of them also....


Fisrt of all for Clarification, I am NOT spearheading "the anti-environmentalist sediment here" - in fact that couldn't be farther from the truth. The people I have a problem with (like the one in the article here) are NOT environmentalists. They couldn't give a squat less about the environment, as their actions dictate. These people are not Environmentalists, they are "Anti-Recreationists", which is why for the last year or so (since that term was introduced to me) is why I have been asking people to refer to them as "Anti-Recreationists", not eco-nazis, tree huggers, etc. They want control. They want to be able to tell you and I where and what we can and can not do/go - and they are willing to do just about anything to get others to view us as the "destroyers of the Earth" that Randii eluded to..... I pick up trash whenever I see it on the trail, I've had my friends crash into the back of me on my mountian bike because I saw a candy bar wrapper an stopped to pickit up. I fill the floor boars of my Willys when I 'm out whelling with trash I find. when out hiking I fill my pockets and back pack. I consider myself an environmentalits - So I am NOT spearheading anything against environmentalists, but I will acknowledge that I am trying my best to make others aware of the Anti-Recreationists that are using the guise of environmentalism to further their personal agendas and socialist beliefs....

An environmentalist cares about the environment. He also respects others and recognizes that others are entitled to their views. He realizes that people are PART OF the environment, not masters of it. Leaving two months of human waste in the forest in a concentrated area will have a grave affect on the biological lively hood of the immediate area. Leaving plastic, which is one of the most enviro-UNfriendly materials man has made, in the forest is not caring for the environment. This man was NO environmentalist.



I feel this is a war, unfortunately. I share your sentiments that we should all be on the same team and not against each other and had believed that until several years ago when I actually started researching the true drive of such groups as the sierra club and the cbd ( I will never capitalize them ;)), but I have since removed my blinders and looked at the entire picture. If someone is forcing themselves and/or their views on me, I will view them as an enemy. if they continually resort to scare tactics and so called "facts" they've made up and/or exagerated to remove my Right to use public land, then constitutes retalliation. I've tried for many years to just be a passive environmentalist. It accomplishes nothing... We must get our point of view out to the general public and let them see what we are about, and the only way to do this is counter the propaganda and slander the Anti-Recreationists are spewing as "facts"....

You might have noticed I said my Right to use public lands. This is another place where I disagree with you. Public lands are a RIGHT not a privelage. I am forced to pay taxes to the government for maintenance of public lands, therefore I am entitled to use them. I will also say that I'm not in favor of opeing up the entire palnet to OHV's. There are places where vehicles do not belong, I'll be one of the first to tell you that....




I'm with Randii and I'll call a spade a spade. This guy showed ZERO concern for the very thing he spent two months in living in a tree to protect.

Someone that hurts the environment can not be considered an evironmentalist. The problem here is what you have eluded to in that what is damage and what is just "asthetically unappealing"? (DRM and a few others have brought up many discussions as to what "damage" actually is and how to define it, all with no one actually being able to give a definition). So where I see this guy's waste as damaging the microbiology of the immediate are it is in, as well as the plastics taking eons to bio-degrade, you see it as just some trash... there will never be a white and black distinction on what is damage and what is not, or what is just use.... Lakes and ponds fill in with sedimant and become meadows. this will never change, no matter how much we try to counter it, it will eventually happen. the world is constantly changing, and will continue to do so. Things that you or I may see as "damage" will be gone in furtue years as the Earth reclaims its resources, roads and trails I have used in the past year have already begun to disappear bac into the landscape. So how can we define Damage? I don't feel it's possible. So what it comes down to is what is acceptable use and wht isn't. To me, what ever someone wants to do with their property is fine by me, to the typical Anti-recreationist or Environmental Extremist it has to be their way or no way....


As for development, thats an entirely different issue in that the states, counties, cities, private owners ar in control of that land. The people control those groups (with the often overlooked exception of the private person) and hold in their hand the power to vote and control what goes on around them..... too many sit around and bitch about development, when they have the power to regulate it......


Basically, as all the other have stated, The multiple use enthusiast is often a greater steward of the land that the so called environmentalist.

PSD



:usa:

...I don't see this as a middle ground vs extremist issue ... we have two entrenched camps that should be on the same side
Hence the 'middle ground?'

As far as the staus quo goes, i don't believe that to be realistic. Nothing stays the same.
I'm not arguing for stasis -- which would be impossible -- but rather for mile-for-mile trades when 'wheeling areas get 'redefined' as wilderness. The continued headlong dash to dub as much land as wilderness is NUTS. We should strive for a percent distribution guideline, with some classified as wilderness, recreation areas, etc.... and there are PLENTY of wilderness areas already, IMHO.

In case you haven't noticed there seems to be a great deal of aggressive development going on in most parts of this country.
I find that to be pretty insulting. :( I also believe that it is a side issue. :rolleyes: Don't lump development in with 'wheeling -- when areas are developed, we lose 'wheeling opportunity as well.... access advocates and developers are very separate groups. Lumping them together weakens your argument.

I would just like to see the tread lightly, leave no trace ethic become the norm...
I'm with you there.

Randii

Originally posted by Victor
But it is a much more important issue to prevent the destruction of wildlands for profit. Who gets to decide whether it is necessary is the political question.



Victor, I think you my find more motorized access enthusiasts agree with your prospective, than disagree, except most educated enthusiasts believe vehicle use (and the required presence of roads and trails) do not have unmanagable distructive impacts to wildlands. This is where we diverge from the radical "environmentalist." We believe man, and his mechanizations, are compatible with lands of wild charactor, where the anti-access folks believe man must be prohibited from entering wildlands (that includes you, driving or hiking).

The other point that you may have missed, is that most motorized recreation enthusiasts believe the distruction of lands with wild charactor is unforgivable (and totally unacceptable) even if it not for profit. The distruction of lands with wild charactor is unacceptable for any reason, for profit, or for some idealistic vision of natural animistic purity (like that exhibited by the treesitter).

I think you may need to rethink the notion of profit being the root of evil, because the entity that has profited most from lands with wild charactor is The Nature Conservancy, an non profit corporation (along with other activist non-profit corporations, who may have sponsored this illigitimate treesitter).


Originally posted by Victor
While on a personal level I agree that I would prefer less rules regulating my personal behavior, I also believe that when a corporation (not just an individual) gets big enough and rich enough to impact the rest of us without our ability to resist that, then we need government regulations to step in to keep them under control.

Corporate greed can come in many flavors. Obvious greed is for-profit, covert greed can be for-power, or for exclusive control of tangable assets. This is where you may need to look at motivation of corporations, profit and non-profit, and the actions resulting from greed (are they correctable, or are they irresponsable and permanent).

The largest corporation and landholder in the USA is the Federal Government. The Agencies managing these public lands do not always manage these lands in our interests (or along with the will of the peoples representatives in Congress). What do you think about a need for regulations to keep the government agencies under control? In case you have not noticed, most of the unhealthful land in the USA is managed by the Federal Government. Is this an indicator that we need controls on the government? What type of greed is exhibited by these government land management agencies? I suggest you read the NRDC and Earth Justice reports, and read who the CBC litigates most for failure to properly manage the wildlands?

The second largest landholder in the USA is a multi-billion dollar asset corporation with a CEO that recieves a salary in excess of $300,000 per year, a corporation called The Nature Conservancy. While many perceive their land holdings to be exempt from development (what many people despise) their vision of preferred development is one of abandonment. Is this a corporation that you include in your view of entities that need the government to step in a place more controls? Maybe with a need to preserve shared-use recreational access to their land holdings?

The Government Agency leadership under the Clinton Administration, and The Nature/Wildlands Conservancies see roads and trails as negative development, including maintenance of existing route features. I do not know if you understand that abandonment of a route can be more damaging than maintaining a route, but remember open multiple shared-use public access to a trail (by foot, car, and horseback, etc.) place more eyes on a trail to assure true habitat dangers are mitigated quickly. Abandonment, gates and closures, tend to place barriers to restrict those who care (folks like you and I) to prevent expedited mitigation maintenance and habitat protection. Do you think there may be some type of greed as motivation for these access prohibition actions?

While many clubs and groups contend they participate in cooperative trail maintenance efforts, most isolate the type of trails they support (only hiking trails), the most active shared trail restoration efforts are from the motorized and equestrian enthusiasts. Think about who is more greedy in their actions, those who promote and maintain trails for exclusive use, or those who promote trails for shared use?

Did you know the only trail system that is shared with all recreation visitors on public land is OHV legal trails? Hiking trails are unwelcome to all but hikers, horse trails may exclude mechanized vehicles (mountain bikes, motors), and even street legal roads exclude true unlicensed off-road vehicles. OHV roads and trails welcome all users, from hikers to ATV riders, with the least selfish regulations for cooperative shared use. Who is the least greedy in respect to sharing access and the enjoyment of wildlands?

Who is willing to share the "middle ground"? Who do you best fit in with (motivation, ideology and actions): the "Wildlands Project environmentalist" or the "public lands of wild charactor shared use enthusiast"?

Happy Trails!

These people are not Environmentalists, they are "Anti-Recreationists", which is why for the last year or so (since that term was introduced to me) is why I have been asking people to refer to them as "Anti-Recreationists", not eco-nazis, tree huggers, etc.
Yup. Anti-recreationists, anti-access activists, closurists, etc. -- 'tis no wonder they like to hide under the cover of warm-fuzzy enviromentalists.

An environmentalist cares about the environment ... He realizes that people are PART OF the environment, not masters of it.
Preach on, Brother Sub.

Basically, as all the other have stated, The multiple use enthusiast is often a greater steward of the land that the so called environmentalist.
Want proof? Check out these four-wheelers busting ass to work WITH the USFS even in crazy weather...
http://www.pirate4x4.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=90163

http://www.4x4wire.com/gallery/trailshots/4x4_Trailshots/Preserving_Our_Trails/Friends_of_the_Rubicon/November_2002/PB090122.JPG

Just like down on the recent American River Access Work Project odd Jergens road in Rescue. All 'wheelers, even with a fairly aggressive campaign to get the other user groups (hikers, plant people, fishers, etc.) to visit. The only folks who showed up and gave their Sunday to work the land -- they were 'wheelers.

Randii

You guys gave some very good arguments and I apreciate that. I don't have time at the moment to address them point for point but I don't really think that we have that much disagreement. For example it was mistakenly stated that I believe that access to public lands is a privilage. I believe that ACESS is a RIGHT, however altering and profiting from those lands must be a privilage. An example being a hunter or someone gathering firewood for his home. As long the hunter or wood gatherer is enjoying the bounty of public land legally and for himself or family I have no argument. When it turns into a meat or lumber business, that is when the right becomes a privilage and needs to be regulated. I am not against profit per se, how would any of us earn a living? What I do not believe in is profiting from public lands that we all own collectively. There is ample room for profit in the private sector. And as far as logging is concerned, even on private land, if there is a risk of destroying something that can never be replaced I draw the line there. Thats my opinion. As for access, I am a wheeler, I built my Jeep up from stock to a capable SOA trail and rock climber. I want to see trail access as muchg as anyone here. I just wish that there could be a way to get across to those who want to preserve our wildlands that we can be of more help to them than opposition. Oh, and I like that word "anti-recreationalist" the term "econazi" has always irritated me as it combines two contradictory images to me, one of someone who loves the land and the other of the worlds most notorious hate group. anyway, I guess I made my point and am happy to have seen such well thought out replies.
Thank you,
Victor Buxbaum

Originally posted by Victor
You guys gave some very good arguments and I apreciate that. I don't have time at the moment to address them point for point but I don't really think that we have that much disagreement.

Thanks for the stroke, but where did the ferver go to defend irresponsible trashy behavior in the wilds as long as it is for (a belief of) a "good cause'? It seems we still have this disagreement: that you believe the treesitter was trashing the forest ... for "a good cause."


Originally posted by Victor
I believe that ACESS is a RIGHT, however altering and profiting from those lands must be a privilage. An example being a hunter or someone gathering firewood for his home. As long the hunter or wood gatherer is enjoying the bounty of public land legally and for himself or family I have no argument. When it turns into a meat or lumber business, that is when the right becomes a privilage and needs to be regulated. I am not against profit per se, how would any of us earn a living? What I do not believe in is profiting from public lands that we all own collectively.

When a corporation or legal activist group closes public land from motorized access, litigate and stipulate to close roads and trails, do they alter the land?

When a corporation advertises victory in attaining this goal of altering the public's land through road and trail closure, during solicitations for funds, is this not profiting from altering the public's land?

When a business corporation litigates to build a complex on public land, it removes the land from public use, and we quickly call it evil development. When an activist corporation litigates to designate critical habitat on public land, and it removes the land from public use, why do we shy away from calling it evil development? Both remove the land from public use? Which taking of the land is more evil? Which has more selfish greed (for themselves or others: man or animal) as the motivation?

I often read about the Sierra Club profiting from exploitation of misrepresented dangers facing our public lands. They raise 17-million dollars a year from these fundraising efforts, efforts to scare the public that man's presence is evil on public lands (all bad development). 17-million dollars of profit generated from exploitation and abuse of the true health of public lands (with false claims that the funds collected go to direct habitat protection solutions). Stunts like this trashy treesitter advance this manner of exploitation of public lands. Are these actions still for a good cause? Are they "not-for-profit?"

The Coors Institute reports most large corporations operate on a 2-3% profit margin after paying overhead, wages and taxes. The Sierra Club (alone) receives the equivalent profit (annually), from it's expoitation of the conditions of our public lands, as a for-profit corporation that generates 570-million dollars of revenue.

Is the Sierra Club a Small Corporation? No. Are wages paid, Yes (although much less that the true 560-million dollar corporation). Greedy business? Yes (based on asset to profit margin). Exploitive business? Yes (based on their lack of reinvestment in active managment of the asset they exploit). Selfish business, Yes (based on the lack of cooperative solutions to aid shared access to the lands they exploit). Should we call the Sierra Club (and their allies) a developer? (you decide?).


Originally posted by Victor
And as far as logging is concerned, even on private land, if there is a risk of destroying something that can never be replaced I draw the line there. Thats my opinion.

Did you know trees are a renewable resource (ever tend to a garden)? The crop cycle for timber may, however, be longer than a single man's lifespan (why many do not realize it can be replaced, even if harvested). Is sustainable harvest and management of timber on the "other side of the line?"

Do you agree, only a selfish man chooses to deny his children' children a healthy forest, over the long term, for a stagnant static forest view in thier lifetime? This is what we have today: unhealthy stands of trees that will die of disease and fire, preventing our children from the experience of a healthy diverse forest, all because the current crop of anti-access folks want it to be a static representation of (their vision of) pre-columbian forest. Is this what you want?


Originally posted by Victor
I just wish that there could be a way to get across to those who want to preserve our wildlands that we can be of more help to them than opposition. Oh, and I like that word "anti-recreationalist" Victor Buxbaum

You may learn that the current extreme "environmentalist" movement leadership is more than anti-recreation, much more avid as anti-human activists and anti-access activists. Is this the leadership you believe we should join to preserve our wildlands (or is it just their vision of wildlands)? Is shared preservation the ultimate goal of these groups? Preservation of wildlands for future generations of human enjoyment, or for exclusion from future human enjoyment? Research the founders and ideals of the Wildland Project, and get back to us, please?

I contend if we could "get across" to folks (like yourself) the selfish results of the methods chosen by WIldlands Project activists to preserve "our wildlands," then it would be easier to see the true "middle ground" is closer to many traditional development interests, than the preservationist development interests.

Again, who do you best fit in with (motivation, ideology and actions): the "Wildlands Project environmentalist" (close it, to protect it for a few) or the "public lands of wild charactor shared use enthusiast" (keep it open to protect and share it for everyone)?

Happy Trails!

the ironey of stupidity!:rolleyes: