🚀 go-pugleaf

Milquetost (milquetost@aol.com) wrote:
: Todd- You have obviously missed the gross injustice of human population
: overwhelming the biosphere (lifezone on planet E).  We are experiencing

Dearest Milquetost,

You are obviously given to making sweeping assumptions about one's
education and understanding of issues and stating them as fact--without a
single supporting quote, I might add.  Please refrain from such behavior
in the future.  It borders on a personal attack.  If you disagree with
something I have written, then please explain.  If you don't understand
something I have written, ask. 

: the single most catastrophic event in Earth's history- massive species
: extinctions.  The attempt to save the Condor is a last ditch effort (after
: the fact) that the animals land is all consumed by humans. 

Indeed.  To be more specific, the Condor sanctuaries were established to 
keep humans out of a couple plots of land for the benefits of animals and 
the habitat they seem to need (much discussion about that, if you have 
been following the discussion).  That fact refutes Vandeman's notion that 
something of this sort of thing has never been done.  That is the only 
reason I made mention of this example.  You seem to be reading much more 
into my post than could possibly be justified.

: If every place we call a park or reserve had mountain bike trails cutting
: up the ecosystem we would have nothing of the marginal protection we have
: today.

I suppose that's true.  It is also true that we would have even less 
protection if we tried to establish the sort of blanket ban on human 
access to open space areas adjacent to heavily populated urban areas 
because:
(1) Many people would have no respect for such an unreasonable and 
    unenforceable policy, and would tend to go wherever they damn well  
    pleased instead of sticking to a few well constructed and designated 
    access routes; and,
(2) Those who complied with such a ban would likely satisfy their need for 
    outings in undeveloped lands by getting into cars and driving to far 
    off destinations where they could legally explore the great outdoors, 
    thus increasing the demand for the output of products that are 
    produced at the expense of the natural environment.

As for "mountain bike trails," I do not support them, partly for the 
reason you have noted.  If we had to build separate trails for eavery 
user group, we would tear up much more land than has ever been seriously 
considered to satisfy our ourdoor recreational needs.  Simply put, 
segregated trails are one of the least efficient and most environmentally 
damaging means providing access to undeveloped open space that I can 
imagine.  That is why I support allowing mountain bikes on a significant 
portion of existing trails in all human accessible open space areas and 
doing our best to make the multiple-use concept work smoothly rather than 
trying to build segregated trail systems or simply banning a popular 
trail activity and pretending that we can actually afford to enforce such 
unpopular laws.

: I realize that ecology is a new science, but you might want to
: take the time to learn the fundamentals- it is probabley the most
: important field of study to your life.

You might want to consider the possibility that I have already done so.