PDA

View Full Version : Double standards



k7mto
05-11-2006, 03:12 PM
Posted on another forum I frequent...

http://sandsports.off-road.com/dunes/article/articleDetail.jsp?id=321633

DAKOTA
05-11-2006, 03:49 PM
Great story , I could read all day if it was filled with tickets written to fat-head tree huggers . It's kinda rare that any news station gets the truth on a braodcast of this type .Thanks for the short cut I have a hard time reading every mag. I get in the mail .

My1stJeep
05-11-2006, 04:40 PM
That is awesome, just goes to show how these people think they are above everyone else and don't have to play by the rules!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

DsrtJeeper
05-11-2006, 04:49 PM
That is classic!!! Where is John P. to address this issue? Maybe he can now look up "Hypocrite" in his Websters to describe the CBD members. :rolleyes:

1BLKJP
05-11-2006, 05:43 PM
Nice to see that no one is above the law. Just yet another example of how we aren't blowing smoke when we say these people do not play fairly while we are trying to.

Sedona Jeep School
05-12-2006, 09:28 AM
Ha! That's great! Thanks for sharing, Matt. I wish I had seen the broadcast!

John_P
05-13-2006, 12:20 PM
That is classic!!! Where is John P. to address this issue? Maybe he can now look up "Hypocrite" in his Websters to describe the CBD members. :rolleyes:

What issue? I see no issue here. The gentleman did not follow the rules, therefore he got what was coming. What issue?

My only question regarding the article is this...

How does the CBD, or any eco org benefit in the way of money from closing areas?

DREDnot
05-13-2006, 12:38 PM
How does the CBD, or any eco org benefit in the way of money from closing areas?

I think it would show the armchair eco nazis that this organization is getting things done for their agenda. Since they dont have the time to be active , (or would be ashamed to show up in THEIR big SUV)they can certainly toss some money their way and get a little (or big) deduction on their personal or corporate taxes.

Maybe thats what he means

k7mto
05-13-2006, 01:36 PM
Ha! That's great! Thanks for sharing, Matt. I wish I had seen the broadcast!

There are video links to the broadcast segments at the bottom of that site.

John_P
05-13-2006, 03:22 PM
I think it would show the armchair eco nazis that this organization is getting things done for their agenda. Since they dont have the time to be active , (or would be ashamed to show up in THEIR big SUV)they can certainly toss some money their way and get a little (or big) deduction on their personal or corporate taxes.

Maybe thats what he means

So you think their incentives are tax deductions for donors? Seems a little weak considering all the moeny they have to spend just to go to court...

Doesn't seem the worth it...

Sandee McCullen
05-14-2006, 11:10 PM
What issue? I see no issue here. The gentleman did not follow the rules, therefore he got what was coming. What issue?

My only question regarding the article is this...

How does the CBD, or any eco org benefit in the way of money from closing areas?

They WIN............. massive acres are closed to motorized recreationists so these lands can allegedly be PRESERVED. The radical environmentalists simply have their own agenda and that is to close all lands to any/all uses of our lands outside their personal wants or agenda.
Daniel Patterson will NOT "talk"; he will not "partner"; nor will he bend. If we had the dollars behind us that he has don't think we couldn't stand eye to eye with this group. They simply want POWER. TNC want LAND; Sky Island Alliance want to "Talk for the animals"............. who do we have to support us? Our own people won't dig into their pockets for a $10.00. If every OHV recreationist put $10.00 bucks out on the table we could not only stand eye to eye with these guys we could stand beside them in court. AND WIN. We can based our data on FACT....... they base their data on personal opinion. I guess that's the "issue".

John_P
05-16-2006, 04:54 PM
They WIN............. massive acres are closed to motorized recreationists so these lands can allegedly be PRESERVED. The radical environmentalists simply have their own agenda and that is to close all lands to any/all uses of our lands outside their personal wants or agenda.
Daniel Patterson will NOT "talk"; he will not "partner"; nor will he bend. If we had the dollars behind us that he has don't think we couldn't stand eye to eye with this group. They simply want POWER. TNC want LAND; Sky Island Alliance want to "Talk for the animals"............. who do we have to support us? Our own people won't dig into their pockets for a $10.00. If every OHV recreationist put $10.00 bucks out on the table we could not only stand eye to eye with these guys we could stand beside them in court. AND WIN. We can based our data on FACT....... they base their data on personal opinion. I guess that's the "issue".

Ok...I see your point about who has the "power"...however beyond the "ha-ha we closed this area" factor, how do they benefit specfically?

or...

Is a "benefit" here being defined as "realizing an ideal"...:confused:

If I follow their logic to the extreme, THEY would not even venture on to these lands...that only confuses me more!

Doesn't make sense to me.

My1stJeep
05-16-2006, 05:43 PM
I guess I see it as the "eletist" mentality that they display. They want to close the lands off to users, except who they think should use the land.

Case in point, why he thinks he does not have to pay for a pass. While the users of the dunes have issues with some of the rules regarding the passes, they do see that you have to pay to play. They try to work with the land management orgs to address the issues, but the responsible users pay. Yes there are some that try to enter alternate ways to get out of it, so I can't say that no one does not pay. However I see those that are right in the middle of the debate as being to a higher standard. You have to lead by example.

You won't find board members of the ASA who are advocating rights for OHV users spouting off that they don't need a pass, instead they are encouraging everyone to buy them and try to show what good comes from the funds.

I see CBD reps as needing to do the same, but to come out and say that he was above that, admitting a known fact that they feel above others and they have the power to ignore the law was very satifactory, to me it showed everyone exactly they type of people we are dealing with.

It is times like this I relish. If guys like him keep doing this publicly and we can continue to change our image and be the nice guys who "REALLY" do care about the environment, we have a shot at keeping our lands. It is going to be a long haul, and a hard road to traverse, but days like this help.

There are people who do want all areas closed down to any human traffic, all areas should be left to nature and humans don't belong in their book. I know they are the far left groups, but they do exist, just like those who think OHV users should be able to run over anything and have no rules are the far right. Neither of those are ever going to happen, we hope.

Keep in mind they traverse the dunes to do this as a publicity stunt. I have talked to many hikers, and walking across barren dunes, with no vegitation, no animals, etc... is not something any of them want to do. If it were not for the attention they receive they would not hike there at all, so in a sense of they ever do win and close the area, it will get no use what so ever.

I also think it points out something interesting about their view point. He is not willing to buy a pass to help preserve the area, and protect the animals. Yet the OHV users should? Do hikes not create trash? Snacks, water bottles, waste? Don't they need some place to put it? That is if you intend to use it. Plus if you are really worried about the wildlife, wouldn't you want to do everything in your power to protect it as much as you can, like pay for the pass that helps pay for the dumpsters? I mean they feel some day they will get it closed down, wouldn't you want to pay to protect them up to that point? Just seems that they do live by a double standard, and it is preservation when it serves their needs, but if an OHV person does the same it is desctruction.

Sandee McCullen
05-16-2006, 06:18 PM
Ok...I see your point about who has the "power"...however beyond the "ha-ha we closed this area" factor, how do they benefit specfically?

or...

Is a "benefit" here being defined as "realizing an ideal"...:confused:

If I follow their logic to the extreme, THEY would not even venture on to these lands...that only confuses me more!

Doesn't make sense to me.

Maybe you're finally getting the "issue". THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE! And yes, most likely you're correct in the "benefit" here being defined as "realizing an ideal"...:

Maybe you need to start following the Wildlands Project for a bit.......... this is the "plan for the future" by CBD, Sky Island Alliance, Forest Guardians; ....... all the really radical environmentalists to put our country within ZONES and the urban areas would be for all intents and purposes within "bubbles". There would not be a corridor for transportation between Flagstaff and Phoenix. They're already hitting California but plans for Arizona are on the table.

This is a statement made by a radical group at the recent Collaborative Workshop supported by the CBD: "Jason from NTWC said that NTWC's goal was "to reform ORV use so it doest require the use of motors."
HOW much sense does this make?

Check out these links and then ask "what sense do these guys make. These are pictures on the CBD WEB page making a big deal of the "Tire Tracks" on our lands..... well take a look at where these tracks are: Within the designated OHV PARKS !! Imagine......... tire tracks!

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/ORV_Photo_Albums.htm

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/Coconino_NF_Feb_89_06/Coconino%20Photo%20Index.htm

Point is John that these guys do not make sense, nor are they logical. They certainly are not going to "meet at the table" and they WILL DO any backdoor tactic to benefit their plans. Right now filing frivilous law suits as part of their breakfast food is their thing. It's working. They're winning......... we're losing!

John_P
05-17-2006, 11:29 AM
Maybe you're finally getting the "issue". THEY DON'T MAKE SENSE! And yes, most likely you're correct in the "benefit" here being defined as "realizing an ideal"...:

Maybe you need to start following the Wildlands Project for a bit.......... this is the "plan for the future" by CBD, Sky Island Alliance, Forest Guardians; ....... all the really radical environmentalists to put our country within ZONES and the urban areas would be for all intents and purposes within "bubbles". There would not be a corridor for transportation between Flagstaff and Phoenix. They're already hitting California but plans for Arizona are on the table.

This is a statement made by a radical group at the recent Collaborative Workshop supported by the CBD: "Jason from NTWC said that NTWC's goal was "to reform ORV use so it doest require the use of motors."
HOW much sense does this make?

Check out these links and then ask "what sense do these guys make. These are pictures on the CBD WEB page making a big deal of the "Tire Tracks" on our lands..... well take a look at where these tracks are: Within the designated OHV PARKS !! Imagine......... tire tracks!

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/ORV_Photo_Albums.htm

http://www.endangeredearth.org/orv/Coconino_NF_Feb_89_06/Coconino%20Photo%20Index.htm

Point is John that these guys do not make sense, nor are they logical. They certainly are not going to "meet at the table" and they WILL DO any backdoor tactic to benefit their plans. Right now filing frivilous law suits as part of their breakfast food is their thing. It's working. They're winning......... we're losing!

The way I see it, urban development will eventually be the problem for them as well as us. So in a sense I am for contained urban development. The idea that each American can reside on his/her own small plot of land is outdated. This is an idea that is still elft over from the "expansion of the west" era and is not feasible for many reasons. Water and cost effective transportation being two major reasons.

So in a sense, I can see where conservation and containing urban development makes good sense in the long run.

DsrtJeeper
05-17-2006, 12:41 PM
The way I see it, urban development will eventually be the problem for them as well as us. So in a sense I am for contained urban development. The idea that each American can reside on his/her own small plot of land is outdated. This is an idea that is still elft over from the "expansion of the west" era and is not feasible for many reasons. Water and cost effective transportation being two major reasons.

So in a sense, I can see where conservation and containing urban development makes good sense in the long run.

Maybe not every American can reside on his/her own small plot of land, but many still do and will for years to come. Many people live via solar, generator, septic tank and well water. The idea is far from outdated in rural areas across the US.

As far as urban sprawl and encroachment; that's hardly a worry in the Imperial Sand Dunes which is mentioned in the original topic of this thread. The land is so desolate out there that the military uses it for bombing ranges. (Barry Goldwater Bombing Range.)

My1stJeep
05-17-2006, 02:44 PM
The way I see it, urban development will eventually be the problem for them as well as us. So in a sense I am for contained urban development. The idea that each American can reside on his/her own small plot of land is outdated. This is an idea that is still elft over from the "expansion of the west" era and is not feasible for many reasons. Water and cost effective transportation being two major reasons.

So in a sense, I can see where conservation and containing urban development makes good sense in the long run.


Yes, Urban Development is going to be an issue, the South end of the White Tanks is a perfect example. People move in, they are destroying the areas we wheel in, are causing huge problems for the home owners who have been there for 20+ years, they like living close for their use, but are the first to complain about the dust levels.

While we can not completely stop growth, it is a vital part of out economy, we can make good decisions, something we should all strive to help achieve.

As for we can't all have our own land, someday that may be true, but currently many still do. I think Eric pointed out some fine examples of people who live very remotely, and if you want to see some take the Lake Pleasant to Crown Kng run, you will see many homes along the back path that are among those who live on their own piece of land and do not have the amenities wired up to their homes. While this someday may go completely away and even currenlty is not the norm, it still does exist and will for many years to come.

Urban development is both good and bad, just like everything else in the world.

John_P
05-17-2006, 04:47 PM
Yes, Urban Development is going to be an issue, the South end of the White Tanks is a perfect example. People move in, they are destroying the areas we wheel in, are causing huge problems for the home owners who have been there for 20+ years, they like living close for their use, but are the first to complain about the dust levels.

While we can not completely stop growth, it is a vital part of out economy, we can make good decisions, something we should all strive to help achieve.

As for we can't all have our own land, someday that may be true, but currently many still do. I think Eric pointed out some fine examples of people who live very remotely, and if you want to see some take the Lake Pleasant to Crown Kng run, you will see many homes along the back path that are among those who live on their own piece of land and do not have the amenities wired up to their homes. While this someday may go completely away and even currenlty is not the norm, it still does exist and will for many years to come.

Urban development is both good and bad, just like everything else in the world.

Both of you are correct. I wasn't really saying that you can't live remotely, or that you shouldn't, or that development itself is bad.

But I think you hit it on the head Chris; "urban" development is what we need to see more of, not "suburban" development. I think these two words best capture what I mean by "containment".