🚀 go-pugleaf

>: Do you really think there is something selfish about someone objecting
>: to have to deal with someone else's mess?
>
>No, no, no, and maybe.  But what does this have to do with a policy that 
>makes no accomodation of historic uses of the land in question, despite 
>the fact that a sizeable number of citizens wish to continue such use and 
>may actually be willing and able to fund mitigation and preventative 
>measures that address the sort of damage you are implying?
 
How do you mitigate extinction? I think that word is used to pretend that
environmental damage CAN be eliminated, when it can't.

>: The issue is what _our_ public land looks like 
>: after you've* finished enjoying yourself. 
>
>That's one issue.  It's not an issue that has benefited from a careful and
>objective analysis on a trail by trail basis.  How has that been handled
>in the desert bill?  How has the impact of each trail user group been
>measured and evaluated in terms of preventative or mitigating management? 
>Specifically, have the various user groups been subjected to the same
>processes, assumptions, standards and treatment, or have some user groups
>been given more favorable considerations than others? 
 
You forget. NEPA pute the burden of proof squarely on you to prove you
WON'T have a significantly damaging effect. We don't have to prove you
will.