Discussion in 'Jack's Place' started by Elias Graves, Apr 24, 2012.
Treehuggers. Save the world. Recycle. Don't build. Open space.
Environmentalist are some of the most misguided and worthless people on earth. Conservation is one thing over zealous stupidity is another thing entirely.
political thread is political.
I don't have time to read the article but I will put out the usual please don't get political yadda yadda yadda...
I was just teaching my psychology class about critical thinking today. All I will say is consider the outlook of the website and decide if the information is portrayed accurately. It may or may not be, but never take things at face value.
This is true. Very true.
I was once the victim of a misguided news article back in 1987. And then there are also astrology charts.
I can see both sides, but the way the article is written makes it sound a little overreaching. Was gonna write more than this, but it's a little close to home as I live on state park land and my wife's business is a state park concession
Well, honestly, I can see both sides of the issue. Despite appearances, a lot of the ecosystems around the country are in dire shape from human encroachment, invasive species, pollution, and incredibly poor management. There really is no one-size-fits-all solution.
And to make matters worse, what a lot of these areas need is the restoration of natural processes that society has worked hard to eliminate -- fires, flooding, etc.
As a Florida resident, I can understand why they don't let people with dogs, frisbees, kites, boats (with bilge tanks and grey water), Rvs, fishing poles, beer cans, and drunken spring breakers into areas where wild turtles lay eggs and reef systems are on the brink of collapse. I think part of the benefit of the parks is having land set aside that people are not allowed to screw with. I've heard all the arguments in the papers down here from fisherman being upset about not being able to access the park waters, with the most common reason they give for wanting to do so is that there is simply more fish. Well, if they stopped to think about WHY there is more fish, they would probably realize that it is because we ruined the rest of the coast a long time ago, making the need for preservation more important than ever. The same goes for beach goers who want pristine beaches. They are the reason there are no pristine beaches outside of conservation areas in the first place.
It may sound overly dramatic, but I don't want to take my grandchildren to the concrete paved florida coast to tell stories of what reefs, seabirds, and turtles were like. I'd like for them to see it for themselves. Restricting everyone's access, at least in part, ensures these places don't disappear. Of course, I see the need for recreation areas of parks, but the conservation areas have to stay. The conservation areas are very small compared to the bulk of the coast of the huge coastline of the state that is full of hotels, condos, and so on...and you can do whatever you want on those beaches.
This is an issue upon which to become very informed and think critically, like Gary says. By definition, the park systems restricts rights. Teddy Roosevelt sent out the army to basically prevent the dudes who were used to hunting in the park regions from continuing to hunt there. And as the world becomes more crowded, the solutions become harder to find. My Dad always used to say that your right to swing your fist ends where the other guy's face starts. As a corollary, he used to say that as populations become more dense, we interact more, and more law is required.
That all said, not everything done in an effort to conserve, or preserve, makes sense. I often complain that horses which often trample stream banks at trail crossings and shit all over the place are allowed in most parks while mountain bikes, which do not shit, and used properly, do not erode trails badly and certainly no worse than horses or other foot traffic, are not allowed. But there has always been this idea of historical use.
Around here, it seems they keep building more outhouses at trail heads, and keep leveling and graveling the first mile or so of certain trails in an effort to allow more disabled access. Not my favorite thing, but I suppose there is a need. National Parks and designated Wilderness areas are interesting places, and the rule is to preserve. There is a lot of other public land that is managed differently, including the beautify Sawtooth National Recreation Area (SNRA) which allows most uses, with some restrictions depending on the trail etc. The watchword there is share the trails, which works here pretty well. That is partly because we are remote from large cities, and the use is less heavy. In Western Washington, mountain bikes even in the 90s were thrown in with the dirtbikers, and forced to ride in ORV parks, and second growth private or BLM timber land as allowed by permission. I like the SNRA a whole lot better, and think it is ok we have a bit of Idaho protected pretty completely.
But the balance point is always hard to find.
Good point. I never believe anything I read here.
This has me snickering and my coworkers think I've lost it.
or are they confirming that you never had it?
I had it once.
cost me $20.
the earth will heal up just fine when we are no longer upon it.
Never piss down your own boot...
There's a happy, useful range of conservation between the wacko earth first types, and the nature is my toilet for profit types.
I just pissed on my house shoes
human events is not a reliable news source.