Environmental Elitism

“The wilderness does not belong only to the backcountry cops, the varmints, the elitists, and lastly, to the the lowest of the low...the wilderness travelers. The cops will always fail because they adapt policy to conform to their own personal philosphies which currently exclude all but the elite. A successful balance between environmental protection and a wilderness experience assessible to all who want it can happen only if government policy addresses both. Sooner or later, all of us will fall from the elite, even you, and then what will you do then--leave it all behind without a fight? I say...stand up and fight. You've got a right to ride a horse, or roll your SUV or wheelchair and IV right into the wilderness. If you fail in your task, so what--Wilderness is bigger than you are. Let's grab the pendulum and force it back.

Yes, folks, I'm back, and schnottier than ever. I've been gone a few years, but leaving behind (sob!) all my mountaineering buddies was just killing me. I'm glad to be back to engage in some interesting conversations and let you know what I think of the opinions of our fearless leader who rules this web page.

Why am I here? Well, I've got a little time to kill. For medical reasons, I just cancelled my annual 8-day backpacking trip which was scheduled in 3 weeks...but with love (or hate) from my bpacker buds, how can I not be happy?”

“I for one, disagree with the troll.”

“You are right... The land belongs to all of us, and not just those that walk into the backcountry with a pack on our backs. What is next, you are only allowed into a park if you are driving a hybrid or electric car? Only if you are a card-carrying member of the Sierra Club or nature conservancy?

The backcountry is there for everyone: hikers, backpackers, ATVers, snowmobilers, MTBers, etc. Calling the current trend elitism is dead on accurate.”

“they are wrong, letting any and everything into the wilderness is what detroys it.”

“More trolls from the other side.”

“Just look at what happened to Ethiopia in its long history.

Let me stand right beside you and blow my cigarette smoke in your face and you better stand there and take it! Cause you certainly don't want to be called an environmental elitist if you ask me to move or if you move away!”

“mtnsteve, since I assume your comment was directed at me, I would be curious to know what the reasoning is that suggests public lands are not open to the public in general, only those that use it in a way approved by a minority?”

“Buzz off fool.”

“Hey Mtnsteve, throw a flash bang under the bridge!”

“mtnsteve, I understand completely. thanks for responding.”

“We get a National tragedy and these trolls come out from under their rocks. There have been at least 3 in the last two days. Perhaps they the same fools.

I lump them with Terrorists, they need to be "removed".”

“Schnotts and WP are %$#$# elitist %$#@^.

What about the rights of bulldozer users, the rights of bowlers and golfers to have bowling alleys and golf courses in the wilderness, and football fans to have stadiums in the wilderness? What about the right to test fire bazookas in the wilderness? Or my right to see the wilderness without $#@&^%ing trees getting in the way?”

“Most of the land that I hike on is controlled by the Department of Agriculture. They have been pretty good stewards.”

“Easy ped, thats what the fools want.

I propose we all ignore them. I will no longer respond to their absurd comments. They get their kicks out of our responses. Cowards hiding behind a keyboard.”

“Mtnsteve. I really want to hike with them bring my boom box and play gangsta rap or maybe some Feminist Indie Rock at a very high volume at 3AM right by there tent!
last edited: 9/03/05 8:59:18 PM”

“So what.

The remaining wilderness in North America by and large is wilderness because there was nothing worthwhile there to exploit and probably never will be.

The governments will be hard pressed to further extend roads into such places just for the benefit of those who want to drive there.

Snowmobiles and ATV's are an issue but the riders of such vehicles thru the process of natural selection will shortly no longer be present in our society.”

“just put the jerks on ignore.”

“In my local national forest things are well balanced. Horse packers and backpackers have the wilderness and primitive areas. The mountain bike and atv crowds have the rest of the forest. Several new trails have been added for atv and mtn bikers by reopening old logging roads. It seems to work. The main problem is that atv's don't share trails well with anyone but other atv's.
Anyway I use a motorcycle as transport to the trailhead.”

“atvs are the worst thing for trails”

“Yes, I am a troll, a fool, etc., etc., and I embrace all of the wonderful and colorful names you gave me. Now can we get beyond that and talk about the subject I raised? Every one of you has a unique set of experiences and opinions, and I would like to hear them. Maybe you can help me change my views. If it comes to that, I will be better off for it, and I thank you.

I understand that many people on this forum are here to just hang out, slap each other on the back, and spread the love, and discourage disruption of the harmony. That's cool. We are all here for different reasons. But if you want to share your arguments as well as your knee-jerk reactions to my post, those who want become more informed would welcome you input.

I have lodged an official protest with some suggestions for change on a number of issues to some of the governmental agencies that enforce backcountry policies. I have no axe to grind on this website. I just want to talk about some of the issues I care about. To keep the discussion going, I offer the following viewpoints:

1. By "environmental elitism", I mean the authorities implementing policies that are geared toward a) protecting their own ideal of wilderness (translation: anything not human), b) treating people as unwelcome visitors, and c) creating an environment that only the ascetic new breed of extremely fit campfire-hating bear-encounter-loving insomniacs can enjoy.

2. There is a contingent of decision-makers in the NPS, and others, that wants to return national parks to their original pristine state, i.e., keep you out of the backcountry. They are not asking for your opinions--they are making decisions and implementing policies to fit their personal philosophies. Your welfare and happiness are not even considered. If you say or do nothing, this is what you can expect for the next generation: No bear lockers or any other permanent sign of human habitation (including no sanitary facilities); no fires of any kind; no allowable food protection of any kind except bear canisters; no pepper spraying or any interaction whatsoever with wildlife--just let them take it to you; no venturing off authorized trails; camping only in designated campgrounds that are selected before your trip begins; packing out poop; and eventually, no backcountry travel, period. Some of these policies already exist in many locales.

3. We all grew up with different backpacking experiences, but I mourn for those that have never known a campfire because they were trying to be good citizens and follow the rules, and for those that spend hours per day (and stay awake hours per night) trying to abide by ineffective required food protection policies, and lastly, the 99%+ of would-be backpackers who gave up after one trip (or after they left the Scouts) because these policies made it no fun.

4. Yes, I agree that this discussion is insignificant in light of the ongoing tragedy in the Gulf, but I see that you're posting, too. I applaud the efforts of those that are volunteering and making sacrifices. We should all do what we feel we can.

5. I don't mean to imply that we should open up the wilderness to ATVs, but I think there should be a place for everyone, whether on public or private lands, or old logging roads. But what about packers? They are being forced out of many ranges by policies that severely isolate where they can camp with traditional campfires, etc. that their customers demand. Packers perform a lot of trail maintenance and other services in many ranges. When they're gone, expect a lot less maintenance and more bushwhacking on the trails.

6. I don't understand the comment about Ethiopia. I visited that country for 9 days in 2001, and have some ideas of what can be done to improve living conditions, so I am very interested in you opinion.
last edited: 9/04/05 5:47:14 PM”

“Carl Pope is the Messiah!!”

“I believe it was Truman Capote who once said....

"That isn't writing; it's typing."



Carry on.”

“Geez Nigal, and here I was thinking Carl Messiah was the Pope.”

“http://www.perc.org/publications/articles/Crichtonspeech.php

Michael Crichton deals a terrible blow to hippy environmentalists and idiot religionists in one article. A good read.”

“I'm sure the 'environmentalists' are quaking in their birkenstocks.”

“LOL - y2 is a True Believer.”

“I am with him! Let's cut down all the trees!”

“To be honest I think this hurricane season could be a turning point on global warming issues. Sure they'll be arguments on either side, and no direct connection is made, but I think you'll see the issue creeping up the political agenda.”

“

As you can see, the facts don't exactly match Y2's global warming religion.”

“Interesting article”

“Mutt mutt mutt...... you should really read the things you post.”

“Y2 Global warming HAS to become more important for the politicos to take any useful action. Of course, a little science goes a long way.
When was the last time we got to R in the names of Atlantic hurricanes??”

“Crichton certainly is convincing in his attacks on some of the mythologizing of earth worshippers. However, lots of environmentalists don't share these myths of an perfect Eden.

Crichton himself calls for environmentalism that avoids religious zealotry and is evidence based - although he doesn't really say what this would entail.

Furthermore, Crichton himself plays fast and loose with a lot of fcts. Just a sampling from what I know offhand.

1) Yes there was never any good evidence of a DDT cancer link, but there is good evidence of DDT and the chemicals which it breaks down into persisting for very long periods of time and being toxic to birds atop the food chain, as well as to crustaceans.
It is possible that Crichton is being deliberately misleading or that he was mislead. This is because the strongest evidence is that DDE causes egg-shell thining. The thing is that DDE is a DDT metabolite, so DDT breaks down into DDE. Reducing DDT reduces the DDE in the environment.
Even onald Bailey - a conservative attacker of "Eco-myths" acknowledges this. See http://www.reason.com/rb/rb010704.shtml

2) The US ban did not prevent DDT from being used in other countries. In fact, it is still used in other coutnries. In fact, some of the bugs it is used against have become very DDT resistant. How he blames the US ban on DDT for 10 - 20 million deaths world wide is beyond me. I do agree that DDT should not have been banned, it just should have been very tightly regulated.
3) Environmentalists I know of have generally called for wise and selective use of DDT - including suggesting it is OK for preventing malaria used wisely, but not for troutine agricultural use.
4) The expansion of the Sahara is a serious problem for much of sub-Saharan Africa. Chrichton would have us believe there is no expansion.
5) I don't know if its accurate to say the total ice is increasing on Antarctica, however if it is true it is misleading in that it provides no rebuttal to Global Warming concrns. The temperature of the Anatarctic Penninsula keeps rising, the melt season gets longer and major shelves collapse. When temperatures are below freezing, precipitation not temperature determines how much new ice forms.

Anyway, Crichton provides no references - no data for his sweeping claims of fact. He seems to want us to take them on faith (which is ironic). Since he was wrong or misleading (or both) about many things I know something about, I am defintiely not going to take the rest of what he says on faith.”

“Well, it was a speech, pedxing. Not the sort of thing you end by reciting full citations. He's saying that some of the things that you "know" (i.e. mainstream science) aren't true, so your rebuttal of him being "wrong" or "misleading" doesn't mean much. However, you're right - without disclosure of his sources, this remains an editorial.”

“Pedex in his defense he said he did have facts and stats to back up his claims that could be provided if needed:

"I can, with a lot of time, give you the factual basis for these views, and I can cite the appropriate journal articles not in whacko magazines, but in the most prestigeous science journals, such as Science and Nature. But such references probably won't impact more than a handful of you, because the beliefs of a religion are not dependant on facts, but rather are matters of faith. Unshakeable belief."”

“People do work evidence into speeches, especially when they are challenging prevailing Wisdom. Obviously his claims are controversial. There is a great deal of data to the contrary. Crichton is grossly misleading in describing his claims simply as facts that the media has failed to report.”

“Holy crap! You kids still locking horns?
LOL!”

“Well, pedxing, his speech obviously leaves a lot to be desired. I wouldn't be surprised if he publishes a more detailed analysis.”

“When was the last time we got to R in the names of Atlantic hurricanes??

1995 Roxanne. It crossed the Yucatan and hit the Mexico gulf coast.
That year we went to "T"”

“As much as it pains me (not really) I have to admit that this is very interesting Mutt. Thanks for posting it.

Yes, it is an editorial more than a cited piece of work, but he puts forth some good discussion points. What I like about it is the insistance on ridding environmental science of emotional influences. I always start off the year with AP Env. Science students mentioning this. So many are there wearing their stupid tie-dyes and spouting off non-sensical emotional crap about the environment that makes no sense. I especially enjoy seeing then squirm as they face reality. "Oh ......so Native Americans killed and slaughtered each other too just like the evil white man. Huh?"

Pedxing...last year the NY Times Published a lenghty article on DDT and Malaria in Africa. I'm not at work so I can't cite it, but the auther made a strong case for the continued use of DDT in Africa. It is still very effective against Mosquitoes. I seem to remember the article mentioning 500,000 African children per year dieing from malaria. Our concern for Bald Egales and the like seems a little selfish when weighed against the lives of children.

Where's the emotion for their lives?”

“Jo - The US didn't prevent DDT from being used in Africa. BTW: I agree that DDT should be regulated, not banned - I just am appalled at the misinformation that suggests that the US has prevented DDT from being used where it is needed in the 3rd world.”

“Doing some on-line research I see much to dispute Crichtons claims and next to nothing to support them. I already gave you a great link on DDT and eggshells.

On the Sahara:
http://www.answerbag.com/q_view.php/19972

http://worldatlas.com/webimage/countrys/africa/td.htm

http://www.afrol.com/articles/13455”

“Ok Mutt, I'll point it out for you, the last item in your chart only represents four years, the rest, ten-year intervals.”

“Michael Crichton is a science fiction writer who takes an opposing position to the accepted beliefs of the day and writes a novel around the opposing view.

He is a debater, who takes the unpopular view and writes a story.

When the USSR and USA were hell bent on being the first in space - "The Andromeda strain" drew parallels with the diseases introduced from Europe to the Americas and asked what was being done to prevent dangerous space diseases being brought back.

Jurassic Park followed Dolly the sheep, what controls should be put on cloning.

I read the environmental book "State of Fear". As always Michael cited many references in the bibliography section which is at the end of almost all his books.

Does he say he is correct - No - he gives an opposing argument citing his references as any good debater would.

Difference between Michael and a lot of others is he makes a lot of money with his opposing view science fiction.

Perhaps he gets (some) people to think a little, and not just accept everything they are told, and that is a good thing.”

“Y2, look at the whole trendline, comrade”

“You really stuggle to understand huh Mutt. This ten year period is set to be a record one. Though only time will tell. But I guess it won't matter what the scientists say, unless it happens in BFE or wherever you are then it's not happenng at all.”

““Ok Mutt, I'll point it out for you, the last item in your chart only represents four years, the rest, ten-year intervals.”
Y2
3:38:51 PM

Which puts it on track to be less huricane affected than a decade 120 years ago (1881-1890), and since 1940, the trendline is actually negative ... no global warming trend. Perhaps there is a global cooling trend instead?

What was your point y2?

Since you're obviously not pursuaded by mathematics, maybe this is more up your alley:

http://www.journalnet.com/articles/2005/09/23/news/local/news05.txt
last edited: 9/23/05 3:59:36 PM”

“Y2, a statistics course might have saved you from making an ass out of yourself in this case.”

“Since you're obviously not pursuaded by mathematics, maybe this is more up your alley:

LOL - that's definitely more in line with Y2's enviro-religious thinking.”