This just doesnt make sence

[bh4rnnr]

Looking around on "my space" yeah I know i'm a looser but I can afford it...... Came across this lady from Boulder(go figure). Looks to be Greeny type. Found this:
I work for a non-profit organization. We campaign for environmental issues. This summer we are working against the recent removal of the Roadless Rule. The Roadless Rule was an extremely popular executive order made by Bill Clinton in the last few days of his presidency. It protected about a third of our National Forests from new road construction. The Bush Administration removed these protections on May 5th. Because it was an executive order, no one was able to vote for or against it.
Each state has the ability to put these protections back into place. We can definitely make that happen by druming up a lot of public support. Every state's governor will make a decision about this. Colorado's governor is notoriously bad with environmental policies, but the people of this state definitely care. It's places like these protected areas that made me move to Colorado six years ago.
Here is why I feel so strongly about protecting these areas.. Well, first of all these new roads will open up our National Forests to tax-payer subsidized logging and mining. 90% of Colorado's drinking water (60% of our nation's) comes from these protected areas. Mining in the areas could very easily contaminate water tables with arsenic and a bunch of other horrible things that I can't spell. These areas provide each state with thousands of tourism jobs as well as critical habitat for threatened wildlife. Fire is five times more likely to occur on roaded lands than on unroaded lands. Bush's rules do not require any assesment of the environmental impact of the new roads. There is also no clear direction for maintaining, even monitering wildlife populations. And once again, they open pristine wilderness to all possible uses

The part I dont get at all is "Fire is five times more likely to occur on roaded lands than on unroaded lands" Guess I need to re-learn everything Cusp has tought me, and Jeff Dedise for that matter...... I'm gonna send a nice reply to her telling here all I know and have experianced. And she even had a letter all written up and telling everybody to Cut/copy/print and send to the Congressman..... Sheesh.

 

[nuclearlemon]

sounds like typical cookie cutter education of most of the greenie groups. look at how popular the wilderness society is. if people actually read a couple of pages in (not hard to find, just need to get past he first couple of pages), you'd find they're for the abolition of the human race (maybe not completely, but some serious thinning). bet a lot of their contributors would think twice if they knew that.

 

[Red_Chili]

She is correct, she cannot spell.

Unfortunately, both sides of the issues tend to be heavy on that copy/paste thing (guilty here), and a little light on being conversant with the issues. Yes, roaded areas *can* be more likely to burn (5 times more? Don't think so) because humans and human activity are the primary cause of catastrophic burns and roads bring humans. Bush hardly revoked the Roadless Rule; he made control of it more local and more out of Washington's hands. I for one applaud that. We do need to preserve roadless areas - but roadless areas don't actually have to be 'roadless' to get 'preserved' under Mssr. Clinton's rubric. That I oppose. Local control is a moderation of it.

RE: the Wilderness Society, Sierra Club, et.al.: It does come down to a basic philosophic assumption: do humans belong in the wildlands? Or do they belong in urbanized concentrated areas leaving wildland corridors for wildlife migration, untouched by human activity? Is there a way to balance these? Is seeking a balance in itself evil in that it is compromising the ideals we must pursue?

I have made my views on idealism pretty clear elsewhere. But you will find even in TWS and SC rank-and-file, there is no real consensus when it's boiled down to these ideas. Except perhaps among the minority 'true believers'.

 

[IanB]

I agree with Bill, fires will be more likely where there are roads due to human activity. However this ignores the fact that most of the western US is a giant tinderbox right now due to years of fire fighting that have prevented the burning that is a natural part of the ecosystem here. A far more dangerous intrusion into the wilderness than a road is a house, as it is for the protection of houses in "pristine" wilderness that we have created the fire problem mentioned above.

Anyone using the word "pristine" in reagrds to wilderness in the lower 48 is naive, we have ravaged the ecosystems here. There is no natural balance anymore as we have eliminated most predators and (mis)managed public lands for well over a century. We have imported a variety of diseases and parasites from all over the world that are doing further damage in ecosystems in which there are no natural checks or balances for these species. The best we can hope for now is environmental triage, damage control basically. Environmental groups tend to ignore these facts as they do not reel in the donations and arouse the emotional support of the general public.

In a perfect world the "greens" as you call them and the 4x4 clubs and other interested land users would realize they are all actually on the same side, and all we are arguing about is the details. But idealism pervades the environmental movement and so it tends to shoot itself in the foot. Just ask the mountain bikers, who supported said groups only to find themselves disenfranchised later when those groups turned on them and started restricting mountain bike trail access. Or climbers, who have been told that a chalk smear or a bolt 2000 ft up a rock face where no one will ever see it is a negative impact on the environment and so have had thier climbing access restricted.

Ige is right. Ultimately the only way to meet the agenda of the extremists is to eliminate the human race. And whether they like it or not, humans evolved on this planet with every other species and we are part of the environment. So its hypocrisy.