Further...

The tree huggers have solidified their position and made it known through publication so that they can support it in a unified manner.

http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/con...on/offroad.asp

We need to do the same. We need to come up with a document that states in no uncertain terms what we stand for and what we want. Then we need to rally ALL off pavement enthusiasts behind it.

 

And now it gets interesting. First, don't look at this as a me against anyone, I don't claim to represent environmentalists or off-roaders. As far as what was posted, I completely agree with both Isaac and Rob. You guys are spot on, and recognize what it will take to implement change. A strong word of caution, pick your spokespeople carefully. If this is going to happen, it will start on a local scale, but MUST be taken to a regional and global level to succeed. For that you need articulate, intelligent, socially-acceptable spokespeople to represent the group. The environmentalists may be a bunch of hippies, but they have lawyers and businessmen in expensive suits doing the talking for them, and pretty hollywood types spreading the word to the general public. Off-roaders cannot continue to have the rednecks and backwoods militia-types speaking to the general public, no matter what percentage of the group is made up of these types. On a trail ride it doesn't matter what you look and sound like, but in the courts and on TV, it's probably the most important thing.
One other thing, something small and easy to do that may be a good-will gesture showing you are open to compromise, think about how you address the groups you are supposedly trying to work with. The main reason I keep getting sucked into these threads is because I feel offended every time I see the terms tree-hugger and greenie being used. It's bad enough seeing it in writing, but I also know the way it is spoken by some, used as more of a put-down or curse word. It's probably one of the main stumbling blocks I have in trying to relate to Rob and others.

 

Yet you have voiced NO objection to off roaders being referred to as "people who rip up the earth" in the title and body of the article.

THAT, in a nutshell, is my problem with the opinions you have expressed in the past. Your opinion seems to run a great deal more Sierra Club with a few off road sensibilities than it does off road with an understanding of what the Sierra Club is trying to accomplish. Much more...

There are firebrands on both sides, but he who sits on the fence, gets shot at by both sides.

 

I've got to say, I am probably more of a camper/hiker/outdoorsman than a wheeler, but I think Rob is DEAD ON with this. I think it is absolutely true that we need to show a united face on this issue, We need to stand together, if we bicker amongst ourselves, okay, thats one thing, but we shouldnt be doing in front of "them" as the case is at this point.

The thing that makes this hard is we cant just SAY we are a united front, we have to actually be together. WE actually do ALL have to Tread Lightly, and do what we need to, to clean up trails, and keep them open.

YOu may actually not care about the enviroment, you may not care about soil erosion, or nitrogen rich waters killing fish, you may not give a crap as long as you can take your truck offroad, and to be honest, thats stupid, but fine, dont care about the enviroment, but CARE FOR the enviroment, if for no other reason, than they will take away your chance to go offraod altogether, if we cant show them we arent out to kill everything.

What I am saying is, its not the ideal situation, but if your doing the right thing for the wrong reasons, your still doing the right thing. We need to get it together and fight this stuff!!

 

You are correct, even though I find those labels just as objectionable, I usually don't feel the need to speak up. Many others on these boards point out the problems of negative labels for off-roaders, so I feel the voice of that group is heard, but few if any speak up on the issues I address. As far as this subject, it's certainly not a small group I'm addressing, for all that Corey does to try and make this a kinder, gentler, non-objectionable board; he too is guilty of tossing around the labels I find demeaning.
As far as your second point, I have to admit I'm out of touch with the current stance of many organized groups, but from what I remember would feel again insulted to be included with the Sierra Club.
For your last point, again I agree. My wish is not to be on either side of the fence, or to straddle it, or to be shot at in general. In my own little way I hope I can tear down the fences, and let those on both sides find a solution from there.

 

The greenies and tree huggers speak in no uncertain terms. They insult the intelligence of the off road crowd, they speak in generalizations and they present their arguments in a way that is likely to bias the listener, whether it's strictly factual or not.

I am curious where I can find posts from you where you are encouraging those who want the trails to be closed to compromise and build bridges. How is that being received? Or are we the sole recipients of your wisdom? The position you are advocating only works if you are applying it to both sides.

I don't claim to speak for anyone by myself. As such, if I choose to use emotionally charged terms, it is because I have deemed that to be appropriate for the audience I am addressing. Sometimes it has a great deal more impact than warm and fuzzy, kiss and make up, rhetoric. If someone finds that language objectionable, demeaning or offensive, then perhaps they need to grow thicker skin or maybe spend more time asking the other side to play nice and see how that is recieved...

 

Care to enlighten me and teach me the error of my ways?

 

Isn't that supposed to be Tread Lightly! or the Blue Ribbon Coalition? It's a little more progressive here in Colorado. "Stay the Trail" has billboards and other media throughout the state.

http://www.treadlightly.org/
http://www.sharetrails.org/
http://www.staythetrail.org/

Oh - and, wow, never thought this thread would inspire such deep conversation. If nothing else comes of it, at least that good was done...

 

Seeing that I will assume I am being intentionally insulted, so will respond to the rest and be done.
You probably won't. I don't consider internet bulletin boards to be the best platform.
Or we can just consider you objectionable, demeaning, or offensive and move on.
I hope my points come across to others that read this, but obviously there will be some that don't want to listen, and that is certainly their choice.

 

That would be ideal. However, we are still REALLY fragmented and even those top level organizations are not united under one umbrella, even though they are basically singing the same tune.

We need to unite even further, ideally with one voice.

 

I in no way meant it as a personal attack. I think you do a great job of keeping the peace on this board. I simply meant that I have seen you use the term Greenies in your posts, and honestly was not sure if you knew it was an objectionable term to some of the boards members. Maybe I am on my own here, and nobody else finds issue with the use of what I consider derogotory names. If so I know the drill, and can suck it up or find a different board.

 

By all means. Click here to "ignore" Rob. That way, you will never be bothered by anything I post again. Perhaps you can do that with anyone who speaks in terms you don't like. It seems to contradict the "turn the other cheek" philosophy that you seem to be advocating wheelers adopt, but whatever floats your boat.

 

just look at Rockport Offroad park. A private park in IL that was developed over the last few years. Then when a significant portion of the leased land was sold out from under them, they have essentally been forced to close. (They have relocated and opend a new park but its virtally all rock stuff)

 

I have not read this whole thread, my short lunch time does not allow that.

The term Greenies refers to those who want to shut down trails to off roaders, and have them open only for those who use walking sticks and have Vibram soles.
In other words, hikers.

And that is what they are doing, hence the need for programs such as Tread Lightly.

I am a hiker too, but also off road.
But there are many who do not want to share the forest with us.
They are guilty of being selfish, hence I enjoy calling them greenies and tree huggers.

 

After a bit of digging, I found the address of the author of that piece.

conor.dougherty@wsj.com

Feel free to write him and mention your thoughts on the article.

 

I said I was done, and here I am anyway.
I have no need or desire to ignore anyone. Strangely, if you look back through this thread, I have agreed with much of what you said. I am not looking to argue with you, I'm not sure we even disagree on all that much, but I don't feel like I understand your perspective and was looking for clarification for the purpose of understanding. I don't have a "turn the other cheek" philosophy and am not sure where you got that. Earlier in this thread I was advocating off-roaders to adopt an effective voice so their needs are better understood, it sounds as if we both think this is very important. I'm hoping from here on I can keep to the bigger picture and not dwell on individuals.
It looks like my issues with the use of derogotory terms might be my issue alone, and will just deal with it as such. If the terms are used towards me I will consider them a personal attack and react accordingly, otherwise I'll just assume it is referring to the extremists that I dislike as much as the next person.

 

I don't see where ANYONE directed any of the terms that hurt your feelings, at you, ANYWHERE in this thread, so I have to agree about taking this back to the bigger picture... that was a strange little digression from the subject at hand.

 

Just thought I'd throw this out there. not that I have to convince any of you. but the Iron Range Off-Highway Vehicle Reacreation Area (IROHVRA) in Gilbert, MN was an iron ore open pit mine until 1985. from 1985, until 1997, it sat unused. in 1997 when volunteers started cleaning it up, they removed hundreds of thousands of tires, something like 8 abandoned, and burned vehicles, hundreds of appliances, etc. etc. and it was a 3-4 year project before it could be opened to the public.

which also proves the irrelevance of their statistics. the 30% population 'plummet' in the last 2 decades was since the mine was shut down, and has nothing to do with the off road park, which has only been open for about 5 years (IIRC it opened in 2001).

and, the $40 3-year entrance sticker pays for much of the cost of keeping the park open. not to mention annual events like the Crawl 4 the Cure, the MN4WDA spring convention, and the MN-Jeep summer run.

You're also required to clean your rig off before leaving the park.

now tell me that our use of the park is hurting anything!


another interesting tidbit. By acreage, the state of Minnesota is the 3rd largest land owner in the country, after the Federal Government, and the State of Alaska. and yet, of all that land, there are 11 miles of trails outside the 1,500 acre park where ORV's are legal.

for more information, visit www.MNOHV.org

 

Apparently diction is used as a wedge to stifle debate, unlike you I'm able to look pass one's abilities in the use of language to see the higher point.
Lib's savor talking and talking and talking about an issue. Using platitudes like, "we should all want the same thing's" ie. a pristine environment ,and social equality
As I reviewed my comments they are concise and to the point argue with those, ya think?
I added the second part about the compost toilet as an insight into the world lib's wish for all of us.

Ps maybe I'm a little touchy now that "the people have spoken" and we're repeating Vietnam and the seperation of church and state crowd fell empowered to mock Christmas now

and oh yeah NO the enviroment shoulded be number one our rights should be!!

 

and when your "right" impenges on my rights?

While im not going to agree/disagree that the enviroment should be number 1, i would like there to be something left for the people that come after me. What "damage" i do when im there is the real issue of debate that people will never agree on.