vision2020
Re: Fwd: Re: The Curtailment of "Mudboging"...
> Thanks for the thoughts. It is hard to imagine that flinging mud, in
> and of itself, is any less illogical say than kayaking it whitewater
> or skiiing deep powder. To each participant the activity is fun.
> You or I don't have to understand it to make it legitimate. On the
> other hand, damaging ecosystems is a separate issue. I do not
> condone this, nor would most of the OHV enthusiasts I know (yet some
> would). I think it is worth some honesty regarding the damage done
> in the name of various rec pursuits and the aesthetic (vs.
> ecological) sensibilities.
Kayaking and skiing aren't harming to ecosystems. They don't destroy
plant or animal life. Now, snowmobiling (spelling?) and speedboats can be
hazardous to the environment by endangering animal life and polluting.
Just because its fun for someone to destroy an ecosystem doesn't mean they
should be able to do it. Using designated roads and being cautious with
your vehicles, be they cars, dirt bikes, snowmobiles or speedboats is
responsible. I still don't understand why you "need" to be able to kick
mud up and destroy a meadow because it is "fun"
> First, recreation development in America has permanently rendered
> useless vast areas of wilderness as well as less pristine landscapes.
> We do this as a sacrifice to enable a pursuit that different groups
> value. We make a tradeoff. Similarly, we accept certain
> degradations of ecosystems (e.g., ski runs on alpine slopes). More
> tradeoff. We do NOT require respect for the marmot who was
> displaced. We simply sacrifice. Respect for the environment is not
> a part of the definition for a sport. This holds true for pursuits
> like hiking and mtbiking; each damages the landscape, sacrificing
> some nature for some human gain.
The definition for a sport should include respect for the surroundings.
And making human greed and pleasure seeking should not be placed higher
than the lives of any organism.
> Suggesting that OHV enthusiasts stick to roads is tantamount to
> advising mt bikers to do the same. The scales of impact vary but the
> principle is the same: a legitimate pastime needs to be met with
> appropriately planned, designed, constructed and maintained
> recreation areas suitable for their unique needs. Your email avoids
> the idea of how this user group has been neglected and thereby has
> been marginalized into an outlaw status. Why not be truly visionary
> and talk about helping meet their needs?
I deny the legitimacy of a pasttime that has no respect for anything but
itself. Gratuitous destruction of ecosystems should not be accomidated.
If there was a group of people that wanted to go around smashing bottles,
even if they liked it and thought it was "fun" doesn't warrant societal
approval. I would allow you to used your vehicles as long as they are
being used with respect of the environment in mind. Your last two
sentences sound a lot like Dougs' emails. You are trying to turn the
tables and make me into the oppressor, say that I'm intolerant because I
wouldn't allow the destruction of habitats just for the sake of a few
kicks someone might get. What about the needs of all the life whose home
is the meadow? What "need" is there? Why do you "need" to muddbog?
Meeting their "needs" adequately enough includes allowing the use of
designated roads, not providing meadows to destroy.
Back to TOC