🚀 go-pugleaf

>>>Kiss off outings to the desert as just one more loss we suffer at the hands of
>>>politicians who want to take care of us from cradle to grave and protect us
>>>from ourselves.
>> 
>>Just shows how little you know. The national park is to protect other 
>>species from you, which can't protect themselves.
>
>Where is that written Mike? Your statement certainly has an "anti-human" ring 
>to it.
 
Glad you can recognize the anti-human ring, where there is none. Too bad you
can't recognize the ring of truth. I believe the charter of the NPS includes
"preserve and protect" isn't that explicit enough for you? Why can't you
anti-environmental types do your own homework, without the rest of us
having to spoon-feed you all of your environmental information (which you
instantly spit out, anyway)?

>Personally, I think the park is a fine idea in many way's. Unfortunately, at 8 
>million acres it is an abhorrent overkill. Why so much?  Why such a lack of 

Why? Wildlife had it all to itself for eons. Why should they now have to
squeeze onto halfway protected, tiny million-acre reserves? They are that
large because there is that much diversity to protect. In the rain forest,
species ranges are even smaller, so a million acre reserve would preserve
maybe 1% of the species. Why don't you move your family into a 1-room
"apartment", if you think space is unimportant?

>flexibility with the ORV sector? Is this some power statement by the Green 
 
ORVs are totally incompatible with wildlife. Even the presence of humans
is incompatible with most species (see _The End of Evolution_, by Peter Ward,
especially p. 271).

>The park excludes provisions of any kind for ORV travel. You may 
>say that is just. If so, then it is you that desires to control lives.  In 
>many other National & State Parks, multiple use is working.
 
"Working" from your point of view, but not that of the wildlife FOR WHOM
THE PARK WAS CREATED!

>Perhaps, I am wasting my time.. Let's see.. Could you answer this question for 
>me?
>
>Mike, do you think ORV's should be allowed on Public Lands? 
>
>No? Yes? Please elaborate on your statement.
 
ORVs are an oxymoron, with the emphasis on "moron". They should not be allowed
on ANY land, public or private. They serve no useful purpose, and simply
destroy habitat and scenic value for the next person, plant, animal.