🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <jmwd.82.000BE62A@pge.com> jmwd@pge.com (JMWhite) writes:
>
>What I have never understood is why ORV parks have not been set up in some of 
>the more god-forsaken areas of our state.  Specifically, I am thinking of the 
>thousands of acres to the immediate west of  HWY 5 between HWY's 166 and 41 
>like the oil production areas around HWY 58.  While this lunar-like area might 
>harbor a kangaroo rat or two, it has to be the least objectional place (for 
>both sides) for a compromise.  It sure seems that there could easily be a few 
>thousand carefully selected areas that ORV'ers could use to their hearts 
>content and not severly compromise an ecosystem while their at it .  Why are 
>we fighting over what both sides consider "prime" land when there is plenty of 
>other land that is less "sensitive" and yet fulfills all the prerequisites 
>that ORV'ers look for?
>
>I know this does not address the issues such as access and ownership.  I am 
>just curious as to whether a compromise can be reached that both sides would 
>see as acceptable.
>
>James White
>e-mail: jmwd%chem%mbpp@bangate.pge.com or maybe just jmwd@pge.com
>

I think we should limit wilderness hiking to the Angeles Crest
mountains or maybe Soledad Canyon.  That is more then enough
ground for hiking.  There is no need for hiking in the Sierra's,
besides they are too big anyway.  Get the hint?

Brett