NOT a weight weenie
This is about the Roadless Are Initiative! Not only is this very bad for the people who live and work in these affected areas but the responses against it has been overwhelming. Once again we are asking for your voice to be heard. Oh yeah this will afeect MTB acess big time. Oh another thing IMBA will do nothing about this.
Sorry, Hunter. I can't support this one. We have chewed up enough forest.
I am willing to sacrifice bike access to a couple of remote areas in order to slow down the logging of our natural forest.
It is time to start growing and harvesting trees like corn and leave the little remaining forest as they are. Weyerhauser does it for pulp. The logging industry can do it too. It's just cheaper to have government subsidies pay for roads into forests so they can cut trees for virtually no cost.
As a teen-ager, I hiked the Bob Marshall wilderness along the Continental Divide all the way into Canada. It WAS pristine.
I have seen what unrestricted logging access does. It isn't good for MTB bicyclists or anyone who enjoys the great outdoors.
NOT a weight weenie
Just where then do you think the luber will come from? Where do you think the paper you print, write, and wipe your butt with comes from? Is everyone going to build their houses out of brick completely? Oh but wait you have to get dirt for that and that means some kind of road to get there. Is everyone going to sit on metal furniture? Do you live in a non wood house? Do you not use paper products of any kind? Do you care about the communities that their whole way of life is the logging industry? If you think you can live a paper or wood free existence I would like to see it.
Hunter, I work in the paper industry. You are chewing on the wrong guy. I have seen paper and lumber companies destroy miles of forest in a single day.
I have been in Indonesia and literally seen wild animals dazed and lost roaming in fields which only 20 hours earlier were jungles; now turned into paper pulp. And, yes, the same thing happens in the USA. If you haven't seen it, then you aren't spending much time outdoors. It happens in virtually every state that has trees on federal land.
Industry does not need forests. They need wood and lumber. The pulp and wood industries have to start investing in resources just like any agriculture based industry does. They need to plant trees and harvest those trees. Some companies like Weyerhauser realized this need years ago and today gets most of it's pulp from trees they planted years ago.
The wood and lumber in the little remaining forests is finite. Relying on existing wild growth is not a long-term solution.
No American should be willing to sacrifice the little remaining old-growth forest in the USA to postpone the inevitable change of the irresponsible business practices of the wood-pulp and lumber industries.
NOT a weight weenie
Whoa Mike do not get me started here. I spend more time out doors than most people I know. I am from Va. and I have been all over the East Coast from Va. to Fl. and all over the Appalachains. I have never seen what you speak of. Indonesia is not the US! I do not know what you mean by the little remaining forests. That is BS here in the US there are still plenty of them. I am not saying that clear cutting is good but at the same time you do not know where I am coming from either. "It happens in virtually every state that has trees on federal land" What happens? Federal lands are precisely the lansds that are protected by the tree huggers. "Industry does not need forests. They need wood and lumber." Where do you think the lumber comes from Mike? Weyerhauser is not the only ones who do this Mike.
Hunter, what I speak of happens right here in the USA, not only in Indonesia.
I can tell you of walking through dense national forest right here in the lower 48 and returning two months later to what looked like a war zone - not a single tree left for miles - all stripped by a private lumber company accessed by roads paid for by your taxes and mine.
Just because you haven't seen it doesn't mean it doesn't happen. Consider yourself lucky. I am sure that plenty forum readers have similar experiences as me.
If you have spent time in forests, then I assume you enjoy it. Protect natural forests, my friend. Once they are gone, they don't come back the same. Natural forests are finite. When they are gone, they are gone. If we stay on the present course, they will most certainly disappear save for a very few token examples of what once was.
Again, lumber and pulp companies should grow the trees they plan to harvest. It is a viable and reasonable solution and the only long-term solution for those industries.
Hunter, I also have to agree with Mike on this one.
IMBA has responded to the Roadless initiative.
Here is their response:
IMBA Reaffirms Support for Forest Service Roadless Initiative
For Immediate Release
November 16, 2000
Contact: Gary Sprung
BOULDER, CO - The International Mountain Bicycling Association today reiterated its support for the U.S. Forest Service's Roadless Areas Conservation Initiative, which will preserve 49 million acres of U.S. public land. "This is good for the forest and good for mountain bicycling, too," said IMBA executive director Tim Blumenthal.
Earlier this week the U.S. Forest Service released a Final Environmental Impact Statement for the proposal, which leaves decisions about trail use to local national forests. "We're pleased that the plan does not prescribe national rules or guidelines for recreation," said Blumenthal. "We continue to believe that travel management decisions should be made by local national forests."
Gary Sprung, national policy consultant for IMBA, said, "Roadless areas are important to mountain bikers because they are undisturbed and natural and because they often include narrow, singletrack trails that off-road bicyclists enjoy."
"We know there will be future debates about designating Roadless Areas as Wilderness, which excludes bicycling," Sprung continued. "But this current decision protects pristine landscapes and allows quiet, human-powered bicycling on singletrack trails."
During the initial public comment period in the fall of 1999, IMBA supported the basic concept of the Roadless Initiative. The group's formal comments stated, "IMBA recognizes that all types of forest uses, including recreation, have ecological impacts. IMBA agrees with the Forest Service statement that roads and activities associated with roads cause ecological problems... Roads are typically built to support logging, mining and other industrial activities, or to access inholdings. These activities can degrade the quality of mountain bicycling experiences, discouraging visitation and hurting tourism."
The Roadless Initiative's effects on logging have made the proposal highly controversial. IMBA has no formal position on the appropriate level of logging, if any, within Roadless Areas and is focused on the Initiative's road-building directives.
The link to this article is http://www.imba.com/news/news_releas..._roadless.html
IMBA decided not to join the Blue Ribbon coalition because it did not want to ally itself with the motorized ORV groups. In the end this decision paid off because the BLM decided to separate mountain bikes from motorized OHVs.
Here is the link:
Last edited by Joe Pozer; 04-19-01 at 12:07 PM.
NOT a weight weenie
OK look apparently you guys do not see my point. The whole save the environment thing is but for one purpose. It is done without a belief that GOD cannot restore what man takes away. So it is up to man to fix it which goes against what GOD has said. If you Mike go by what you say, "I am willing to sacrifice bike access to a couple of remote areas in order to slow down the logging of our natural forest. " Then you are saying corect me if I am wrong that you are willing to sacrifice a freedom. A freedom which our founding father's established, fought and died for. I am not being extreme here. Any red blooded American should see this. If in fact you are willing to sacrifice a freedom then, one of our founding father's had this to say.
"Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety." Benjamin Franklin (1706-1790), reply of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the governor,
November 11, 1755
What IMBA did was self serving to MTB which is unfair to those who may wish to enjoy trails in whatever form they wish to travel them on. To isolate MTB away from ORV is wrong. One final thing I guess the thousands of people polled and those who responded on this issue who were against it are not considered whenit comes to the pressures of the environmental green agenda. This is America where the majority rules not some lobbying group supported by a global agenda.
Last edited by Hunter; 04-19-01 at 12:36 PM.
Hunter, freedom has many faces.
When the forests are lost - and they are lost every day - nobody has the freedom to chose to see them.
I believe that we should have the right to enjoy forests and to enter them, but what industry does to forests serves the "freedom" of a very few.
Private corporations/businesses are not good stuards of public land.
That is the real issue here. If it were only and issue of recreational use, that would be one thing, but the main thrust of this initiative is to save forests so that people like Hunter, who enjoy the beauty of a natural forest, can have something to enjoy.
Hunter, if your exposure to public land use is mainly on the east coast, go west, young man. You will see things that will tear your heart apart. Go to Washington State or Oregon and stand with one foot in clear cut errosion suffering mountian and the other foot literally in the shade of a diminishing ancient forest.
Try to find more than two square miles of virgin ancient growth in what were once the immense forests of Michigan, Wisconsin or Minnesota. Let me save you the trouble of looking. They are gone.
I have seen it with my own eyes and understand why people who live it are screaming to stop the madness.
NOT a weight weenie
"Private corporations/businesses are not good stuards of public land. "
OK but you raise up another monster here. Public land should be exactly that. It should not be the option of a globalistic agenda to close it down for the sake of a greedy conservation/preservation movement. There are too many US citzens that disagree with this agenda and their voices go unheard because of the lobbying tree huggers. These people do not speak for those families whose husbands work in the timber fields. they do not speak for the private land owner, or farmer who gets their land stolen by the green agenda in the name of a grasshopper, migrating bird, plant, tree or the lack thereof. In the misdt of your travels across the US forests did you stop and raise this topic up with the locals? I know that many who read what I say probably think it has no merit. I realize that some may call me names, however the global agenda that is enacted on this should have no place here! Any American who has read the US Constitution and understands it should see this. All the details of Roadless Areas, Heritage River's etc. are only names the agenda is the same world wide and has no place here. If the US citizens do not like something then WE THE PEOPLE should enact the governmet to do something. The oppostie has taken effect a outside entity enacts the green agenda and the US government listens and complies. This is WRONG! Yes freedom has many faces but that is not the point. I will finalize this topic with this.
David Graber a U.S. National Park Service research biologist. In a 1989 Los Angeles
Times book review, Graber said:
"Human happiness, and certainly human [fertility], are not as important as a wild and
healthy planet. I know social scientists who remind me that people are a part of nature,
but it isn't true. Somewhere along the line . . . [people] became a cancer.
We have become a plague upon ourselves and upon the Earth . . . Until such time as
**** sapiens should decide to rejoin nature, some of us can only hope for the right
virus to come along."
This is the exact same type of person I speak of. This type of person comes up with and lobbies for loss of access in the name of biodiversity.
"greedy conservation/preservation movement global agenda",
"greedy corporate lobbying agenda".
I dunno. aiyaiyai.
It's a long way from cutting old growth trees to riding your bike through the forest. Seems like there is a lot of room for compromise.