Post deleted. It was embarassingly bad. Sorry.
Marc
Full Version: Environmentalists & Off-roaders Working Together?
Marc, I have read your "editorial" briefly and will look through more thoroughly as soon as possible. There is a lot to be digested and I'd like to address my concerns with it one piece at a time.
I am part of two diverse State-level "advisory" groups that include quite a mix of off-roaders and environmentalists, with some extremists included. As such, I have witnessed first-hand the ability of both sides to take in the "big picture," sometimes being pleasantly surprised by either side's ability to actually see the other fella's point of view.
I do think strides are being made. But I also think there is a well-earned lack of trust in our community (and perhaps in "theirs" as well) that is extremely difficult to get past, especially when there has been so much "give" from one side and not the other.
Just some quick thoughts.
Great piece Marc... I'll look closer.
Vicki
I am part of two diverse State-level "advisory" groups that include quite a mix of off-roaders and environmentalists, with some extremists included. As such, I have witnessed first-hand the ability of both sides to take in the "big picture," sometimes being pleasantly surprised by either side's ability to actually see the other fella's point of view.
I do think strides are being made. But I also think there is a well-earned lack of trust in our community (and perhaps in "theirs" as well) that is extremely difficult to get past, especially when there has been so much "give" from one side and not the other.
Just some quick thoughts.
Great piece Marc... I'll look closer.
Vicki
It's hard to compromise when you have been exclusively on the giving side of the equation
I don't see how any Off-road group would be able to negotiate, when there has been such an unbalanced loss of public land use in the last 25 years. It's only lately that there has been a public revolt in this "Land Grab" as a result of un-checked abuses in the ESA.
I hope someone who has actual figures can post some of the losses to the public. Focusing on the ISDRA losses including total riding area prior to the wilderness area N. of 78. The total additional area lost with dates after that, and the total % of land left today, vs. land closed
I don't see how any Off-road group would be able to negotiate, when there has been such an unbalanced loss of public land use in the last 25 years. It's only lately that there has been a public revolt in this "Land Grab" as a result of un-checked abuses in the ESA.
I hope someone who has actual figures can post some of the losses to the public. Focusing on the ISDRA losses including total riding area prior to the wilderness area N. of 78. The total additional area lost with dates after that, and the total % of land left today, vs. land closed
Marc, the closer I looked the more I had to say.
SandWizard mirrors some of what I will post…
SandWizard mirrors some of what I will post…
| QUOTE |
| Would it not be beneficial to both groups to decide to work together to achieve each of their respective goals? |
It would certainly seem so. And in some cases, many “true” environmental-based organizations are wishing for the same thing. I guess it would depend on the goal.
But I think there is a distinction between a “true” environmental (I prefer “conservation”) focused organization and some that have been merely working the system without exhibiting care for the health of any species.
For instance, a very good example would be the attempt to include the Center for Biological Diversity in our cleanups, species monitoring and volunteer assistance with marking the closures. Each and every attempt has been rebutted. On the other hand though, there have been conservation groups who have made an attempt to be involved with these conservation opportunities, such as the Desert Protective Council. They may not have been able to get their members to actually do something, but at least they did try.
It would be very difficult for our community to accept an approach by an organization that has already proven themselves to be anything but reasonable.
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| For the purposes of analyzing the issue, we really can only take into account the tactics used by the environmentalists, as that group is, strictly speaking, on the the offense in this situation. They want the rules changed, whereas the off-road community would like them to remain as they are, or more accurately, as they were prior to the closures of the past decade or so. |
Although I am sure there are some who would agree with the bolded statement, I would have to disagree. I talk to a great many OHV enthusiasts who are concerned with conservation and have been willing to accept change, if not embrace it. The sound laws, for instance. Many OHV enthusiasts see the new laws as a way to meld riding with urban sprawl. If a land owner is getting an area closed down because the sound is too annoying, perhaps less sound will help. Maybe not… but without trying, the loss of riding area is certain. There are also some that feel those laws should include exceptions (like Glamis, where urban complaints are not the problem). That would have been a great area of compromise. It’s my understanding that was a deal breaker.
Vicki
[edited for spelling]
Admittedly, it would be difficult. I thought I addressed that, but apparantly not well enough. I realize that this was a little idealistic, but my intent was not to come off as though I thought that a utopia of cooperation would be easily achieved.
Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Marc
Back to the drawing board, I guess.
Marc
| QUOTE |
| What would be the worst that could happen if they tried and it didn't work? |
That would depend on what is meant by “didn’t work.” Seems to me once our side stands firm on anything the anti-access groups file a lawsuit. What if that deal breaker is, simply, something the OHV community cannot live with? Like signing off the AMA as a permanent closure after years of hearing such a thing is not supported by science. What is the worst that could happen? Loss of credibility if a deal is pursued that the community would not stand for.
| QUOTE |
| Certainly there are things that could be done by each side in an attempt to co-op the ideas of the other while continuing to protect their own values and work toward their own goals. To even begin to think about how these groups can reconcile their differences and possibly work together to achieve their goals, each side must first make some effort to understand the other. |
Absolutely. And as I said before, I’ve witnessed such a thing in advisory council meetings. It is possible and is becoming quite fashionable where the laws are made. Even amongst the “common man” such a thing happens. But it does seem “we” are always the ones to understand (and compromise).
| QUOTE |
| Off-roaders must understand that as much as they love riding or driving off-road, whether it be on the dunes or in the dirt, the environmentalists are equally committed to their goals. |
And if their goal is total annihilation of mechanized access? What then?
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| Some of the concerns of the environmentalists include: - Destruction of endangered species. - Land erosion - Sediment entering running water, thus threatening fish and other wildlife. - Trash and garbage left on public lands The concern of the off-road community is largely singular - keep land available for off-road vehicular recreation. |
I’m sorry Marc, but I think you are doing our community a huge disservice. The concern is not largely singular in our community, as openly exhibited by our actions. For the majority, we too are concerned with not destroying species. Who do you think signed off on the Wilderness Area?
Land erosion? Think “Tread Lightly” and trail rehabilitation efforts. Sediment entering running water? Trail reroutes and stream bypasses come to mind. And don’t even get me started on whether we’re concerned with garbage left on public lands.
I am not trying to be adversarial but please… give us the credit where credit is due.
Vicki
| QUOTE |
| Certainly there are ways that the two groups could work together to achieve all of their goals. Without the expense of fighting environmentalist lawsuits, off-road groups could focus on educating their membership about environmental issues, and the things which the environmentalists focus on when attempting to close off-road vehicle areas. For instance, at Oceano Dunes, if a pro-offroading group made a concentrated effort to educate their constituents about the Western Snowy Plover, it's habitat, and how to avoid causing it's destruction, the community at-large would have it in their best interests to take this information to heart. Bird counts would increase, and the teeth would be taken out of the argument that off-roaders cause the birds' death. At the same time, the environmentalist goal of saving the birds would be met. |
Marc, this is already being done at Oceano and still the permits for the ramp are being blocked. And not just at Oceano… the Umpqua Dunes in Oregon has a group that educates their community on their issues and still their dunes are closing. Even closer to home… there is no regulation against burning pallets at Glamis and yet compared to a few years ago when burning pallets was commonplace, I see only the “uneducated” burning them now. That’s self-policing. Education about the PMV? Do an online search and you’ll find more detailed discussion, more photographs and more “concern” over this little plant on the OHV websites than anywhere else.
And still we are targeted.
Again, there doesn’t seem to be any credit where credit is due. If we are not getting a fair shake from you (is this editorial being published somewhere?), how can we expect it from them?
What more will be expected of us (in the spirit of cooperation)?
Vicki
Vicky, I appreciate your input, but I think you're missing the point of what I wrote here. This wasn't supposed to be a litany of issues that we are or aren't already addressing, it was very narrowly focused on two groups cooperating together. I was trying to do this from an outside perspective, a very vanilla approach. It seems that in my attempt to do so, I have clouded the side of the issue to which I associate - the off-roader's side. I was trying to write from a balanced approach and seem to have overcompensated.
However, you are coming at this issue very much from one side, so I understand your criticism. Someone coming at it very much from the opposite side would also have a lot of criticism for me.
It seems that I have somehow offended you. That wasn't my intent. I apologize if that is what I have done. This is not being published, I just like to write, it helps me think.
Sorry you didn't like it.
Marc
However, you are coming at this issue very much from one side, so I understand your criticism. Someone coming at it very much from the opposite side would also have a lot of criticism for me.
It seems that I have somehow offended you. That wasn't my intent. I apologize if that is what I have done. This is not being published, I just like to write, it helps me think.
Sorry you didn't like it.
Marc
| QUOTE (Mjollnir @ Feb 7 2005, 01:19 PM) |
| It seems that I have somehow offended you. That wasn't my intent. I apologize if that is what I have done. This is not being published, I just like to write. Marc |
You have not offended me.
It seems I misunderstood your intent... I somehow got the impression this was something you had written for publication and I was concerned with it going elsewhere, a magazine or newsletter for instance, without at least giving you the thoughts you had asked for.
However, even knowing that it was only for consumption right here and now, I don't know that I would have refrained from commenting. After all, you did say you were looking for thoughts on it.
Many of us are so used to having to apologize for ourselves and our sport that we do often bend way over backwards in an attempt to make ourselves appear to be more "neutral."
The fact is, we are for the most part quite neutral. We love our sport and also love the land we recreate on. It's a great combination
Vicki
I did indeed ask for input, I just didn't expect it to get torn apart so bad. Oh well, I wrote in in about an hour because I had one little thought in my head that I wanted to get on paper and expand upon. I didn't really know what to call it other than an editorial though.
That may be the last time I post anything remotely serious around here though. I'm going to delete my original post now that it's been so thoroughly destroyed.
Thanks,
Marc
That may be the last time I post anything remotely serious around here though. I'm going to delete my original post now that it's been so thoroughly destroyed.
Thanks,
Marc
| QUOTE (Mjollnir @ Feb 7 2005, 01:36 PM) |
| I did indeed ask for input, I just didn't expect it to get torn apart so bad. Oh well, I wrote in in about an hour because I had one little thought in my head that I wanted to get on paper and expand upon. I didn't really know what to call it other than an editorial though. That may be the last time I post anything remotely serious around here though. I'm going to delete my original post now that it's been so thoroughly destroyed. Thanks, Marc |
Marc, please don't do that.
This is how all of us learn.
You posted your opinion. I responded with mine.
Which one is right?
Both.
They are opinions.
A free exchange of ideas is always a good thing.
Vicki
That's the thing though, Vicky, it wasn't meant as an opinion piece. I'm with you all the way, I was really putting an internal debate on paper I guess. Hard to verbalize.
After listening to your feedback, I am not happy with what I wrote at all, it is clear that I was not balanced in my essay, I overcompensated. It also seems that I wrote an article prosletyzing a course of action which has already been undertaken, much to my surprise. Of course I am aware that we have been on the giving end of the equasion in most cases, I would never argue otherwise. I had not realized that this cooperation was already happening. Therefore, my thoughts on this front are moot.
Tell you what, I already deleted my original post, but I am going to put some more work into it and try to repost with some added material to more accurately reflect "our" side of it. Thanks for the input you provided, I would like to incorporate some of it. I just really like to write, and I clearly did not put enough effort or research into this to get the message across. Partly the reason that I wrote it the way that I did was because I wanted it to be balanced so as to get the environmentalist crowd (whom I disassociate with conservationists, as I view myself as a conservationist as well) to give it a second thought, as they are not known for listening to our point of view. Even if it wasn't destined for publication, I try to write things from a certain perspective.
So now I need to go back to the drawing board to incorporate some more information while still trying to write from a balanced perspective. As soon as the sting goes away from the beating I've received , I'll try to get to that.
Thanks,
Marc
After listening to your feedback, I am not happy with what I wrote at all, it is clear that I was not balanced in my essay, I overcompensated. It also seems that I wrote an article prosletyzing a course of action which has already been undertaken, much to my surprise. Of course I am aware that we have been on the giving end of the equasion in most cases, I would never argue otherwise. I had not realized that this cooperation was already happening. Therefore, my thoughts on this front are moot.
Tell you what, I already deleted my original post, but I am going to put some more work into it and try to repost with some added material to more accurately reflect "our" side of it. Thanks for the input you provided, I would like to incorporate some of it. I just really like to write, and I clearly did not put enough effort or research into this to get the message across. Partly the reason that I wrote it the way that I did was because I wanted it to be balanced so as to get the environmentalist crowd (whom I disassociate with conservationists, as I view myself as a conservationist as well) to give it a second thought, as they are not known for listening to our point of view. Even if it wasn't destined for publication, I try to write things from a certain perspective.
So now I need to go back to the drawing board to incorporate some more information while still trying to write from a balanced perspective. As soon as the sting goes away from the beating I've received
, I'll try to get to that.Thanks,
Marc
Marc, you really need a thicker skin, don't take it so hard.
Exchange of ideas and thoughts are how civilized people in an un-oppress society communicate.
Please don’t be shy-post you thoughts, and don’t be afraid to reaffirm your stance.
I know Vicky may be intimidating,
but it’s all good.
Exchange of ideas and thoughts are how civilized people in an un-oppress society communicate.
Please don’t be shy-post you thoughts, and don’t be afraid to reaffirm your stance.
I know Vicky may be intimidating,
but it’s all good.
| QUOTE (Sandwizard @ Feb 7 2005, 02:17 PM) |
| I know Vicky may be intimidating, but it’s all good. |
Uh oh.
Usually the only time I'm referred to in such a way is when I have blenders in my hand!
Point taken.
Vicki
Marc, I look forward to the re-write.
Yes, eyes are on this forum from every different angle... somethimes it's hard to ignore that and just go with our feelings.
And in some cases, it's definitely a good thing we don't (just go with our feelings).
I promise I'll take a much kindler, gentler approach with the next round
Vicki
Yes, eyes are on this forum from every different angle... somethimes it's hard to ignore that and just go with our feelings.
And in some cases, it's definitely a good thing we don't (just go with our feelings).
I promise I'll take a much kindler, gentler approach with the next round
Vicki
| QUOTE (SailAway @ Feb 7 2005, 02:21 PM) | ||
Uh oh. Usually the only time I'm referred to in such a way is when I have blenders in my hand! Point taken. Vicki |
Only form your zest and commitment, apathy is not in you vocabulary
We're lucky to have you on our side
Since I didn't get a chance to read the now deleted post, it will be difficult to render an opinion about its content. I am guessing that the theme was why can't the two groups come to a mutual understanding, etcetera...???
One reason. Basing my statement on the actions of the CBD, the truth is irrelevant. Facts aren't important. Outright lies are acceptable.
There can only be give and take when both sides have the same opportunity. That scenario does not exist. They take as much as they can and give back nothing. We take nothing and give everything.
We have been slapped around long enough. It's time to stick a foot knee deep up their ass for some payback.
Ahhhh...I feel MUCH better...!!!
One reason. Basing my statement on the actions of the CBD, the truth is irrelevant. Facts aren't important. Outright lies are acceptable.
There can only be give and take when both sides have the same opportunity. That scenario does not exist. They take as much as they can and give back nothing. We take nothing and give everything.
We have been slapped around long enough. It's time to stick a foot knee deep up their ass for some payback.
Ahhhh...I feel MUCH better...!!!
Man, don't discouraged!! I wrote two articles that I had tore up last year! I took a step back and wrote two more in the last couple of weeks. I threw them out on the internet and people are 50/50 on what I wrote.
Articles are the writers view point. Some people will like it and some won't. Don't give up and keep posting them!
Just my 2 cents.
Jack
Articles are the writers view point. Some people will like it and some won't. Don't give up and keep posting them!
Just my 2 cents.
Jack
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.