Sedona Jeep School
07-18-2005, 07:03 AM
In today's AZ Repugnant is an article about conservationists losing their fight. http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/0718stateland18.html
Since OHV interests often butt heads with the conservation view of things, the first response may be "Ha!" BUT, read on.
If all of us look at the big picture, WE are losing--anyone who enjoys wheeling, hiking, riding, and just general outdoors. Land that becomes more houses has NO chance of public recreation for the rest of OUR lives, at the very least. Conversely, land left as open space, at least has some negotiating room for what types of recreation are suitable. I mean, how many meetings are there for deciding whether Jeep trails in what is now, just as an example, Anthem will remain open for public use? ZERO--that land is gone forever.
THIS is our biggest fight: In Arizona, we are losing land to DEVELOPERS, moreso than to conservationists. Did any of you read the thread about White Tanks? http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=8835 It wasn't someone like Earth First who closed it--it appears that the land is being developed for more homes.
Here is my point: our comparatively meager interests (compared to the "deep pockets" of developers) MUST team up with like interests, and in Arizona's case, believe it or not, we have more in common with the Sierra Club, the Save-the-Humpback Chub-Club, the shooters, the ATV-ers, the Militant Lesbian Backpackers, and any Joe Shmoe who enjoys an acre or more of open land. (I took a few liberties with the identities of organizations, but you get my point!) In Arizona, OHV recreationists ARE conservationists.
I suggest that, rather than regarding members of conservationist organizations as the "enemy" all of the time, we look for common ground on issues upon which we can team up--like preventing our entire state from being covered by housing developments. THEN we agree to disagree on what we do with our lands. At least we will have developed a dialogue with the conservationists, which will make negotiations in other areas much more effective.
Don't get me wrong--we still have negotiations on our hands NOW for access. This is what Sandee and Jim are doing. Thanks, y'all.
Any of you who choose to act by attending meetings and writing letters, at the very least, with regard to your immediate area, are putting another much-needed drop in the bucket. Doing nothing is a decision in itself--a decision to let other interests overrun our trails. You choose.
Stepping off of soap box now...
Since OHV interests often butt heads with the conservation view of things, the first response may be "Ha!" BUT, read on.
If all of us look at the big picture, WE are losing--anyone who enjoys wheeling, hiking, riding, and just general outdoors. Land that becomes more houses has NO chance of public recreation for the rest of OUR lives, at the very least. Conversely, land left as open space, at least has some negotiating room for what types of recreation are suitable. I mean, how many meetings are there for deciding whether Jeep trails in what is now, just as an example, Anthem will remain open for public use? ZERO--that land is gone forever.
THIS is our biggest fight: In Arizona, we are losing land to DEVELOPERS, moreso than to conservationists. Did any of you read the thread about White Tanks? http://www.virtualjeepclub.com/showthread.php?t=8835 It wasn't someone like Earth First who closed it--it appears that the land is being developed for more homes.
Here is my point: our comparatively meager interests (compared to the "deep pockets" of developers) MUST team up with like interests, and in Arizona's case, believe it or not, we have more in common with the Sierra Club, the Save-the-Humpback Chub-Club, the shooters, the ATV-ers, the Militant Lesbian Backpackers, and any Joe Shmoe who enjoys an acre or more of open land. (I took a few liberties with the identities of organizations, but you get my point!) In Arizona, OHV recreationists ARE conservationists.
I suggest that, rather than regarding members of conservationist organizations as the "enemy" all of the time, we look for common ground on issues upon which we can team up--like preventing our entire state from being covered by housing developments. THEN we agree to disagree on what we do with our lands. At least we will have developed a dialogue with the conservationists, which will make negotiations in other areas much more effective.
Don't get me wrong--we still have negotiations on our hands NOW for access. This is what Sandee and Jim are doing. Thanks, y'all.
Any of you who choose to act by attending meetings and writing letters, at the very least, with regard to your immediate area, are putting another much-needed drop in the bucket. Doing nothing is a decision in itself--a decision to let other interests overrun our trails. You choose.
Stepping off of soap box now...