I'm getting really pissed off at environmentalists lately.

[Robb]

I need to vent. I need to air my liberal angst at getting ticked off about people trying to preserve nature.

I'm following this forest plan revision thingy in SW Colorado, and there's a coalition of a bunch of environmental groups I've supported over the years, with money and time and such.

Anyhow. Since the USFS are a bunch of dingbats, this coalition has developed an extremely complicated, science- and conservation-based set of proposals -- sort of done their work for them, in terms of habitats, migration, really a ton of data all nicely collated and sensible.

Part of the plan calls for a connectivity of habitats across much of the local forests -- thousands of acres -- really a clever plan where various species types get corridors from one protected area to another. Clever, really, in that you get the effect of a huuuuuuuge protected, wilderness-style forest in smaller connected packages.

Good stuff.

The problem begins here.

All kinds of less-organized (i.e., everybody) groups of forest users are concerned, because the suggestions include closing a bunch of roads and trails to horses, mountain bikes and motorized vehicles. The coalition's suggested plan is freakin' thick, and you have to read it very carefully to realize that's part of the deal.

Again, I don't have too much problem with that.

But when the letters from the hunters, dirt bikers, mountain bikers, jeepers, and horseback riders start hitting the newspapers, dribbling in, there's this barrage of response letters from the coalition folks, telling them not to worry, nothing will change for them, stopping short of calling them panicky.

But they should be! The letters from the coalition people are disingenuous, or outright not truthful, about the situation. If the USFS takes their suggestions to heart, hundreds of miles of trail will be closed. That's just the case.

Ignoring whether or not public lands are "public" or should be completely closed and preserved, I just can't stand the tactics. I'm voting with my meager pocketbook, in not renewing any memberships with these folks.

But hell. If you can't win fair, you don't deserve to win. :grr:

[Baclava]

1. I've lived in the mountain west...access is always a big issue

The last thing people want to hear is anyone telling them they can't do something.
The clearcutters do far more damage than having a road open to the public.

[JVS]

2. Wow, Robb. Your lounge thread went GD!

[Dave Reynolds]

3. I think this is a first.

A lounge thread *moved to GD*.

Way to go, Robb!


:kick:

[JVS]

5. Now let's act stupid enough to get it brought back!

:crazy:

[Robb]

6. Allow me to un-toot my own horn

...I actually meant to post it in GD. I'm just amazed anyone believed me. :P

[JVS]

4. Such tactics might provide short-term gain, but they destroy credibility..

among the public and eventually hamper the ability to get results

[NastyDiaper]

7. Environmentalism is my #1 agenda..

..but I also get pissed when my fellows don't respect recreation. Especially law abiding hunters.

It's like talking free range chicken with vegans (sometimes).

Hang in there Robb. It's hard not to hear only the loudest voices sometimes.

[catbert836]

8. Just keep in mind...

we're not all like that. Being disingenuous may work in the short run for that particular group, but in the long run it hurts our cause because once people distrust one environmental group, they tend to form stereotypes about all environmentalists. I can't stress how strongly I abhor these tactics, which are both untruthful and hurtful to the environmental cause.

Oh, btw, congrats on getting your thread moved to GD. :toast:

[Robb]

9. Yes and no

For one thing, the plan usually lasts ten years, so mistrust can die away as people forget, move, change priorities, etc.

It really ticks me off, as one of the more prolific letter-writers for the coalition is already deeply mistrusted here by hunters, having pulled a similar stunt four years ago with the forest's travel plan -- e.g. a lot of roads that got used, closed. But a lot of those guys aren't around anymore. Red meat, and all. ;)

BTW, check upstream, the thread wasn't moved on its own. :D

[AZCat]

10. This is one of the interesting schisms in the enviro movement

Your tale illustrates a little-discussed division in the environmental movement between those who work to eliminate from nature as many traces of man as possible and those who work to integrate modern humans with our surroundings. It has come up peripherally in many books I've read, including "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" (don't remember the author), "A Walk in the Woods" by Bill Bryson, and some others that I can't think of at the moment (it's still early for me). The upshot is that attempts to limit certain abuses of our forests can be hijacked by those who see any sign of a human as a detriment, just as clear-cutting is a detriment (although most can be persuaded that there is at least a difference in impact).

I apologize for not being awake enough to better describe this, but I won't have time later. I hope this at least sparks some fruitful discussion.

[MadHound]

11. I don't neccerily agree with such disingenous tactics,

However I do agree that we should limit we hunting and horse riding in protected habitats, and completely ban any motorized vehicle in them. And while I agree with you about this being underhanded, I can hardly blame the enviromentalists for fighting fire with fire. How long, if it hasn't happened already, before these special interest groups enlist the NRA and other lobbying/pressure groups to come to their aid with big bucks and big influence. If and when that happens, I imagine that you're going to find your habitat completely invaded by ATVs, dirt bikes and other motorized vehicles, and sadly your protected area will be completely destroyed.

[Robb]

12. True enough

But I don't see fighting fire with fire in this case. Right now, no one is as organized as environmentalists on the forest service. Motorized groups are fractious and less educated -- and, to be blunt, working during the day.
It may not be true movement-wide, but I can say with certainty the spearheads of the environmentalist movement in this case rely heavily on the retired and comfortable. Think of a typical ATV rider, whose spare time is limited during the week.
I haven't seen NRA getting into it, and there just aren't lobbying groups (to my experience) for dirt bike riders and jeepers that have any demonstrated effect. :shrug:
Again, I may like the end result. But I don't think it's representational.