Mudbogs & Rights to recreate

[sean <o2design@wsu.edu>]

>  > 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"

Daniel, our society condones sacrificing portions of nature to allow 
the "pursuit of happiness".  You don't have to think tossing mud is 
fun for it to be legit.  I don't have to think risking one's life 
surfing waves on the Salmon at 40k cfs is legit for it to be so. 
That is part of what America is about--freedom to pursue different 
strokes.  So it doesn't make any difference whether you or I think a 
pursuit makes sense.

In the limited perspective of paddling or shooshing that is probably 
true that skiing (I assume you mean nordic) and kayaking don't do 
much damage.  The problem is that such a narrow perspective ignores 
the infrastructure necessary to allow these sports.  Further, you 
pick two of the least impacting sports to make your point.  You've 
ignored the gist of my argument; we destroy natural environments 
constantly to allow recreation.  Ski slopes are a prime example. 
Surely you would not argue that a ski resort leaves that land 
untrammeled?  All the condos, the vast slopes, the sewer systems?  Is 
this low impact recreation?  Are you suggesting alpine skiing is not 
a legit sport?

Again, I don't think you can single out sports and use them as 
exemplary pursuits without spelling out WHY they are acceptable.  In 
my posts I was clearly NOT approving of damaging private lands or 
sensitive ecosystems.  I was proposing planning OHV use areas.  This 
is the same principle as sacrificing lands for other recreation uses.

>
>>  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.

Perhaps in your view it should, but probably nowhere else.  Now maybe 
"sportsmanship" should, but that is quite different.  Does football 
require respect for the field?  For the forest that was leveled and 
buried to make the field?  I bet those recreating at Moscow's newest 
sports field think they are participating in sports.  As far as greed 
and pleasure, you are dreaming if you think those are not sufficient 
values for recreation area development in America.  Recreation is all 
about pleasure, escape, freedom and "me".  That could itself be 
called greed.  And it is generally sufficient justification.

>
>>  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.

You can deny what you want.  But in this country the people (and the 
courts) say it is acceptable to give up one good for another.  Fell a 
tree to build a home.  Deny a highway R.O.W. to preserve a wetland. 
Clearcut a boreal forest to make a ski run.  Generally speaking, we 
allow these sacrifices.  I'm not sure what your approval or mine 
matters as individuals.  What is condoned as a society matters.  And 
land (and plant/animal) sacrifices are accepted.  My point is that 
OHV use is a legit as other recreation forms, and that it is 
intolerant to randomly single out it.  You have not shown that it 
differs from the principle of land sacrifice for human pleasure.  Why 
does a rock climber "need" to ascend?  Why does a ball player "need" 
to hit and catch?  Because we value the benefits these individuals 
gain.  And we seek not to oppress these desires for escape, personal 
challenge, etc., but to enable them.  And not just for some groups 
with large numbers or large billfolds, but for all people.

-- 
Thanks,
s


         * * * * * * * *
         Sean Michael
         .dwg