Go to this site to read my editorial that was published today.
http://www.ivpressonline.com/display/innop...pinion/ed06.txt
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
[ 11-19-2002, 03:05 PM: Message edited by: dezfan1 ]
Full Version: EDITORIAL PUBLISHED
Before it goes away....
Voice: Environmentalists won't be happy until the dunes are closed
As an American Sand Association member and an avid Imperial Valley Sand Dunes Recreation Area recreationalist, Callie Mack's comments about her desire to close the ISDRA lit a fire under me!
I wondered why someone from San Diego would write a letter to the I.V. Press vocalizing her opposition to an off-road riding area that is not even in the S.D. area. Then it became obvious to me. She is another environmentalist with an axe to grind. Her favorite stone? The off-highway vehicle community.
Ms. Mack speaks of species in the dunes needing to be protected! I don't think the most recent report on the Peirson's milk vetch has been reviewed by Ms. Mack. In that report the PMV was found to be thriving. Not only was it thriving in the closed areas, but also in the open riding areas!
Also most people who use the dunes are law-abiding citizens. We are not the bloodthirsty heathens we are made out to be. There is, however, a fringe element that goes to the ISDRA just to party and raise heck! That fringe group is responsible for the problems at the dunes. Ask most BLM rangers and they will most likely tell you the same.
The ASA has shown its support of law enforcement from the beginning and has done all it can to educate those who use the ISDRA for its intended purpose. Yet the OHV community is still demonized!
It was our community that placed the markers around the PMV temporary closure areas when the PMV's survival was questioned! Where were the environmentalists? It is our community's red and green sticker money that funds the activities of the Bureau of Land Management in the ISDRA.
I don't see any money coming from the environmental groups to help the BLM manage the land! In fact, groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club spend MILLIONS of dollars a year suing the BLM and taking away resources that would be better spent if used for land management, not fending off attacks from environmental groups! It's a little-known fact that 32,000 acres (north of Highway 78) of the ISDRA are closed to OHV use and is therefore the exclusive use of hikers and other non-OHV activities.
We don't harass them or try to have that area opened to us. Yet our areas are under constant threat.
It is my opinion that the anti-OHV groups will not stop their campaign of propaganda until all public land is closed to the public that uses it and it is under their control. I urge you not to let that happen. LIVE FREE OR DIE!
JOE ELMS JR.
Blythe
Voice: Environmentalists won't be happy until the dunes are closed
As an American Sand Association member and an avid Imperial Valley Sand Dunes Recreation Area recreationalist, Callie Mack's comments about her desire to close the ISDRA lit a fire under me!
I wondered why someone from San Diego would write a letter to the I.V. Press vocalizing her opposition to an off-road riding area that is not even in the S.D. area. Then it became obvious to me. She is another environmentalist with an axe to grind. Her favorite stone? The off-highway vehicle community.
Ms. Mack speaks of species in the dunes needing to be protected! I don't think the most recent report on the Peirson's milk vetch has been reviewed by Ms. Mack. In that report the PMV was found to be thriving. Not only was it thriving in the closed areas, but also in the open riding areas!
Also most people who use the dunes are law-abiding citizens. We are not the bloodthirsty heathens we are made out to be. There is, however, a fringe element that goes to the ISDRA just to party and raise heck! That fringe group is responsible for the problems at the dunes. Ask most BLM rangers and they will most likely tell you the same.
The ASA has shown its support of law enforcement from the beginning and has done all it can to educate those who use the ISDRA for its intended purpose. Yet the OHV community is still demonized!
It was our community that placed the markers around the PMV temporary closure areas when the PMV's survival was questioned! Where were the environmentalists? It is our community's red and green sticker money that funds the activities of the Bureau of Land Management in the ISDRA.
I don't see any money coming from the environmental groups to help the BLM manage the land! In fact, groups like the Center for Biological Diversity and the Sierra Club spend MILLIONS of dollars a year suing the BLM and taking away resources that would be better spent if used for land management, not fending off attacks from environmental groups! It's a little-known fact that 32,000 acres (north of Highway 78) of the ISDRA are closed to OHV use and is therefore the exclusive use of hikers and other non-OHV activities.
We don't harass them or try to have that area opened to us. Yet our areas are under constant threat.
It is my opinion that the anti-OHV groups will not stop their campaign of propaganda until all public land is closed to the public that uses it and it is under their control. I urge you not to let that happen. LIVE FREE OR DIE!
JOE ELMS JR.
Blythe
Thanks Doorlord, how do you get things like that to post? ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
The link didn't work for me so I had to look around for it. Then I copied it and pasted it here.
here's another editorial.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...ment%2Dopinions
November 20, 2002
John Balzar:
No Question, the Climate Is Heating Up
Bush and the greens have a torrid hate affair.
"They hate us." A friend called to rant about the Bush administration. "I mean it," he said, sounding a tone of someone who means it. "They hate us. Not just our ideas. But us."
His subject: environmentalists. And I'm afraid he's right.
Anti-conservation has become a gangland vendetta by George W. Bush and those he entrusts to govern. I cannot see another way to explain the endless string of one-sided decisions and the dripping condescension with which they are delivered. Not much of anything -- not reason, not science, not public opinion, not the future, not process and certainly not fellowship -- stands in the way.
I will concede, as I have before, that environmentalists have done plenty to bring on their woes.
Yet that's no excuse for this. Not for the inflammatory, rub-their-noses-in-it statement offered recently in a court case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a feather-brained brief, the administration argued that conservationists should consider the upside of bird deaths at a remote Navy live-fire range. "Bird-watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." Besides, the government added, Navy bombardment keeps away people who might otherwise disturb the birds.
The fact is, conservation should be a consensus issue. It belongs in the center of our politics, high on our priorities list and very close to our hearts. The reason is self-evident. It is a test of values where the ideologies of liberals and conservatives converge, or ought to. The root word of "conservative" is "conserve," after all.
Instead? Conservation has become an extreme example of the polarizing, uncompromising, knee-jerk politics of Washington.
The administration has dismissed science on public-lands forestry, on wildlife and petroleum development and on water flows in salmon rivers. It has disregarded public outcries in defense of roadless areas and park protections and mining policy and, in California (though not Florida, for obvious brotherly reasons), on offshore oil drilling. It has ignored its own resource managers on snowmobiles in national parks and illegal hunting practices in the Rockies. It has turned its back on global warming, shortchanged research and trivialized energy conservation. It has slammed and locked the door on those who represent an honorable and bipartisan movement in American society. Virtually every important conservation law that has guided 30 years of economic and environmental progress is now under attack.
Sadly, these are people who know better. The president and plenty of those surrounding him are firmly rooted in the land; it's no pose. They understand the human-nature connection. They draw strength and shelter and diversion and renewal from the outdoors.
So there is no logic to their policies except the logic of cultural warfare. To say that this administration is simply pro-business overlooks the fact that a large segment of American industry has invested heavily and for years in going green. No, this is wedge politics at its most destructive, dividing and weakening the nation. It bubbles up from the well of grudge, payback -- the same shameful impulse that has been exploited to separate us by race, by gender, by heritage, by class.
That's it. Conservationists got too uppity. Slap 'em down. It's the old bugaboo that every social gain means someone's loss. "Environmentalist" has become a sneering epithet that encompasses urban effetes, hand-to-mouth backcountry activists and ordinary workaday folks who object to 8-mile-a-gallon SUVs.
In short, they aren't another voice in our noisy democracy but an actual enemy. Who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? "Strong possibility" that it was the greens. So speculated Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), a Bush ally and vice chairman of the House Resources Committee.
Administration supporters will counter that ill will is not a one-way path. And that is true. Rancor begets the same. So environmentalists burn with fury. But no one elected the Sierra Club to govern. That is Bush's job. The Wilderness Society doesn't purport to bring us together. That was the president's promise.
Hate is a strong word. And we should hate that, in this case, it's the correct one.
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commen...ment%2Dopinions
November 20, 2002
John Balzar:
No Question, the Climate Is Heating Up
Bush and the greens have a torrid hate affair.
"They hate us." A friend called to rant about the Bush administration. "I mean it," he said, sounding a tone of someone who means it. "They hate us. Not just our ideas. But us."
His subject: environmentalists. And I'm afraid he's right.
Anti-conservation has become a gangland vendetta by George W. Bush and those he entrusts to govern. I cannot see another way to explain the endless string of one-sided decisions and the dripping condescension with which they are delivered. Not much of anything -- not reason, not science, not public opinion, not the future, not process and certainly not fellowship -- stands in the way.
I will concede, as I have before, that environmentalists have done plenty to bring on their woes.
Yet that's no excuse for this. Not for the inflammatory, rub-their-noses-in-it statement offered recently in a court case brought by the Center for Biological Diversity. In a feather-brained brief, the administration argued that conservationists should consider the upside of bird deaths at a remote Navy live-fire range. "Bird-watchers get more enjoyment spotting a rare bird than they do spotting a common one." Besides, the government added, Navy bombardment keeps away people who might otherwise disturb the birds.
The fact is, conservation should be a consensus issue. It belongs in the center of our politics, high on our priorities list and very close to our hearts. The reason is self-evident. It is a test of values where the ideologies of liberals and conservatives converge, or ought to. The root word of "conservative" is "conserve," after all.
Instead? Conservation has become an extreme example of the polarizing, uncompromising, knee-jerk politics of Washington.
The administration has dismissed science on public-lands forestry, on wildlife and petroleum development and on water flows in salmon rivers. It has disregarded public outcries in defense of roadless areas and park protections and mining policy and, in California (though not Florida, for obvious brotherly reasons), on offshore oil drilling. It has ignored its own resource managers on snowmobiles in national parks and illegal hunting practices in the Rockies. It has turned its back on global warming, shortchanged research and trivialized energy conservation. It has slammed and locked the door on those who represent an honorable and bipartisan movement in American society. Virtually every important conservation law that has guided 30 years of economic and environmental progress is now under attack.
Sadly, these are people who know better. The president and plenty of those surrounding him are firmly rooted in the land; it's no pose. They understand the human-nature connection. They draw strength and shelter and diversion and renewal from the outdoors.
So there is no logic to their policies except the logic of cultural warfare. To say that this administration is simply pro-business overlooks the fact that a large segment of American industry has invested heavily and for years in going green. No, this is wedge politics at its most destructive, dividing and weakening the nation. It bubbles up from the well of grudge, payback -- the same shameful impulse that has been exploited to separate us by race, by gender, by heritage, by class.
That's it. Conservationists got too uppity. Slap 'em down. It's the old bugaboo that every social gain means someone's loss. "Environmentalist" has become a sneering epithet that encompasses urban effetes, hand-to-mouth backcountry activists and ordinary workaday folks who object to 8-mile-a-gallon SUVs.
In short, they aren't another voice in our noisy democracy but an actual enemy. Who attacked the U.S. on 9/11? "Strong possibility" that it was the greens. So speculated Rep. Don Young (R-Alaska), a Bush ally and vice chairman of the House Resources Committee.
Administration supporters will counter that ill will is not a one-way path. And that is true. Rancor begets the same. So environmentalists burn with fury. But no one elected the Sierra Club to govern. That is Bush's job. The Wilderness Society doesn't purport to bring us together. That was the president's promise.
Hate is a strong word. And we should hate that, in this case, it's the correct one.
Why would you ruin a post about a perfectly good editorial, written by a REAL PERSON, not someone no one knows, by posting that piece of garbage?
You could have started a new thread, but no... you had to ruin this thread.
Vor
You could have started a new thread, but no... you had to ruin this thread.
Vor
You see VOR, that is the way "GREEN INC." operatives are trained to respond. Do not think for yourself, find something that is supportive of the party line, then post it. It would have been interesting to hear Blu's point of view. Unfortunately, "GREEN INC." hasn't told him what his point of view is on this subject as of yet. I'm sure he will search the web and find it, then post that here as well. Sad but true. ![[Frown]](frown.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
well I thought about starting a new thread and it seemed like it fit real good here since we're talking about editorials and conservation and stuff. John Balzar is an editorial writer who frequently is published in the LA Times.
quote:Well, that explains alot.
who is frequently published in the LA times
Vor
Hey, I was frequently published in my high school paper back in the 80's, maybe Blu will post some of my stuff too. Stardom, I can see it now! ![[Wink]](wink.gif)
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
I don't care where John's Editorial piece was posted as long as it was posted. I think it was pretty good comming from some "enviro guy". I thought that Slappy put this section up so we could understand,or try to understand "their side" NOT bash everything they say. ![[Roll Eyes]](rolleyes.gif)
Well RED. If you "understand" BLUE, I wish you would share that knowledge with the rest of us. Personally, I think he's swimming against tide around here. I don't mind him swimming so much, but he sure fowls the water.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
I can't say that I know all that much about "blue" But I have had every question I've asked of him answered. I think "Blue" is kind of misunderstood. From what he's told me he would like from the "off road community" isn't really that threatening to our sport at all. In fact if I understand it right, in his case, he has every right to ask for what he's asking for. I think anybody that would be willing to listen to "Blue" will see that. On the other hand if I were "Blue" I wouldn't give a few of you the time of day.
I my self have been racking my brain trying to come up with an answer to "blue's" problem. Its really quite simple but yet the only person it will help are the "victims" and add cost to every body including the nonoffenders(who are the largest number)
I my self have been racking my brain trying to come up with an answer to "blue's" problem. Its really quite simple but yet the only person it will help are the "victims" and add cost to every body including the nonoffenders(who are the largest number)
for those just tuning in, my issues are simple:
1. trail proliferation in Limited Use areas is growing and uncontrolled. When green sticker vehicles go off trail, no one can identify them from any visible ID on the vehicle so there is no way to report the infraction.
2. Limit access in Limited Use areas to street vehicles only--either that or redesign the green/red stickers so they're big enough to serve as vehicle IDs from a distance.
3. Issues such as the PMV in the ISDRA are legitimate concerns for the health of our ecosystem. The BLM has managed other areas in ways that favor conservation, such as encouraging certain routes in OPEN areas and maintaining the trails so they don't get all whooped out and force people to go around, widening the trails. BLM should also manage the use of vehicles around rare plants and animals in the dunes. It can be done and still provide stimulating recreation for vehicle riders.
1. trail proliferation in Limited Use areas is growing and uncontrolled. When green sticker vehicles go off trail, no one can identify them from any visible ID on the vehicle so there is no way to report the infraction.
2. Limit access in Limited Use areas to street vehicles only--either that or redesign the green/red stickers so they're big enough to serve as vehicle IDs from a distance.
3. Issues such as the PMV in the ISDRA are legitimate concerns for the health of our ecosystem. The BLM has managed other areas in ways that favor conservation, such as encouraging certain routes in OPEN areas and maintaining the trails so they don't get all whooped out and force people to go around, widening the trails. BLM should also manage the use of vehicles around rare plants and animals in the dunes. It can be done and still provide stimulating recreation for vehicle riders.
Trails? What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever even been to the dunes? How is the BLM suppose to maintain trails in the dunes? Its a ever moving and shifting environment. Sometimes I get the feeling that you enviros think that if we off roads left the dunes, it would all turn back into a rain forest.
quote:This has got to be the best quote I've seen in a long time!!!
Sometimes I get the feeling that you enviros think that if we off roads left the dunes, it would all turn back into a rain forest.
Vor
Nicely Put.
quote:Sort of like smoothing out the waves after those
Originally posted by Valkema:
Trails? What the hell are you talking about? Have you ever even been to the dunes? How is the BLM suppose to maintain trails in the dunes? Its a ever moving and shifting environment. Sometimes I get the feeling that you enviros think that if we off roads left the dunes, it would all turn back into a rain forest.
darn surfers tear em all up.
quote:Then you are the ONLY one he has answered, I have an entire thread dedicated to Blu "DUCKING" my questions.
I can't say that I know all that much about "blue" But I have had every question I've asked of him answered.
quote:That's funny, when I posted an invatition to a Poker Run, Blu jumped all over it with his opposition to it. He is against us using the desert for recreation period.
From what he's told me he would like from the "off road community" isn't really that threatening to our sport at all.
quote:It's a FREE country!
I think anybody that would be willing to listen to "Blue" will see that. On the other hand if I were "Blue" I wouldn't give a few of you the time of day.
quote:Need I say more?
Issues such as the PMV in the ISDRA are legitimate concerns for the health of our ecosystem.
LIVE FREE OR DIE!
This is a "lo-fi" version of our main content. To view the full version with more information, formatting and images, please click here.