Well. actually, there needs to be your so-called RADICAL environmentalists to stop all sorts of problems. I agree that some of them get carried away with some of their demands, but they provide a very valuable service, also. Without groups like Greenpeace, your children would be going to school on toxic waste dumps. Factories would be polluting the air so heavily that Emphazema would be commonplace. Respiratory problems would be widespread. You would still be changing your own oil and dumping it in a hole in your backyard. We would also be driving vehicles getting 6 miles per gallon. So they do serve a useful purpose. What needs to be done is to let your congresspersons know how you feel so they can reach a compromise that best suits the nation as a whole. I assure you, no "majority" wants to eliminate human contact with the wilderness, but there needs to be some policing of the environment so it is here for your great grand kids.
Enduringexplorer is right to a point. I don't think I would give them quite that much credit. Afterall, the world is made up of mostly reasonable people, who don't want our kids going to school on toxic waste dumps, etc.
While the tree huggers may claim responsibility for many of the improvements over the past few decades, in reality, most of it would have happend anyway. Maybe a little slower, without the pressure that is applied, but they can't claim all the credit. Most of it, is simply that the world is learnig from our mistakes. We know so much more than we did a decade ago, and don't think for a minute that we won't know that much more in another decade. As we learn the consequences of our actions, we try to change for the better. Something you take for granted today, may the the cause of the next plague. Who knows, but we will find out, and try to change. Treehuggers or not.
As for Ford, I just ordered two new chev's for my company trucks, which I will gladly pull my snowmobiles with on the weekends.
OTTOCONTROL. i can see that you are new to this site so this i your first warning ! you canot do multiple post's of the same thing ! only one post is tolerated. i had to delete the DONT BUY FORD post 5 times !
enduringexplorer has some good points.When my kids grow up,I want them to have a clean environment.But I am no tree hugger extremist,never will be.I actually take part in keeping the air we breath cleaner.I am a auto tech. and daignose and repair cars that fail the state emisions tests.Our shop does the most in the area and I am the only one in the shop that does them.I take great pride knowing I am helping the environment.So all you guys can pat me on the back.lol
The Ford thing could be WE'LL SCRATCH YOUR Back if YOU scratch Ours, they could payoff someone to look the other way too, to keep them off there backs for regulations. I'm sure factories and refinery giants like GM, EXxon, are companies giving money too! So they are not so scrutinized. Money talks look at the politicians, Bush, Cheney, took in 16 million from oil concerns, right before they were sworn in. What did the price of fuel do after the middle of Jan in 2001?up and up till demand lagged.
If in fact 5 Mill. was given to eviros, I guarantee that is a piece of sand on a beach compared to the money Ford has spent promoting their slogan of "No Boundries" and "Ford Outfitters" which clearly encourages hitchin up a trailer and pulling trailers with dirt bikes, snowmobiles, jet skiis , and boats out into the deepest depths of nature and having fun.
Thanks for the kind words, Paul! What Fishhog said about most people being reasonable couldn't be farther from the truth. If most people were reasonable, we wouldn't be retaliating because of 9/11. If most people were reasonable, the Jews would have stood up for themselves and asked for help instead of letting themselves be hearded into boxcars like cattle, even after they knew of the death camps. If most people were reasonable, we would tell our "glorious, intelligent?" leader to stop with the advance of nuclear weapons and, instead, work on eliminating them from the world.
But most people are not reasonable. They are selfish and think about what is best for themselves, not the world or mankind as a whole. You saw some of that in these forums a while back. Some people actually based their vote for president based solely on his stance on snowmobiling in national parks. Now, I agree snowmobiling is valuable to me, but the welfare of my family, your family, kids, old folks, and humanity is more important. Everything is based on some sort of compromise. You can't always have everything your way. I do not think most of us would have even known about toxic waste dumps if it hadn't been for environmentalists.
So, like everything else, environmentalists need to be held in check, and need to take the welfare of mankind into consideration. If I have to sit on my as# and watch time go by because the environmentalists have gotten their way and outlawed any type of fun or recreation, well, not much point in being around. Compromise is the key.
enduringexplorer - you are so off base! your tree hugging friends are so extreme in their desire to protect the environment through the total exclusion of all human access to it!!!!!!!! please think before you speek
right on fishhog!!!!! for those's of you who would like to respond with a letter may be addessed to:William c. Ford, chairman of the board, Ford Motor Company, 16800 Executive plaza drive, p.o. box 6248, Dearborn, MI 48126
I don't think environmental "extremists" really do any good. Environmentalists probably do some good. Consumer advocates get things done. Scientists, senators, congressmen would protect the enviornment just as well as any enviornmentalist could after all, (your putting them in the office) if they don't do what the public needs and wants they're gone, someone else will. Ralph Nader showed the automobile consumer that changes needed to be made in US car design for safety. The book; Unsafe at Any Speed, he wrote basically about the Corvair.
I don't think having extremists of any kind do much good they are pretty much nut jobs. Some guy bombing abortion clinics to stop abortion, some lady living in a tree for 2 years to save a tree from being cut down while everything else in miles gets cut down, some anti-american muslims killing 3,000 innocent americans. I hate extremists they can all go and f off in my part. None of those examples do anything for their "cause" that is not how it works in modern society.
Now here's a topic that can really bring out the beast in people, at least that's what it has done in my area.
Living in Idaho all my life I have experienced the unpopulated outdoors at their best, from potlatch land above the clearwater in north Idaho, to the frank church river of no return wilderness, to the high desert of southern Idaho we are blessed with some awesome areas to play outside.
In the last few years the "radical" envirofreaks have put forth a massive effort to change the way we use our public lands, citing past damages to the environment from logging, cattle ranching, mining, and damming these very vocal groups have demanded that we close our forest roads and breach the dams that provide energy and recreation for the people of our state.
My experience with these people has shown that many of them are from other areas of the nation and have come to Idaho looking for a place where they can hike and camp in an untouched environment. The major problem with this is that there were others who came before them, and I promise that you won't find many Idaho natives who are happy about being told what to do with "our" forests. If these people are really interested in undoing damage maybe they should close all the roads in their backyards.
Any person who travels through the remote areas of Idaho has to admit that there have been some poor choices made resulting some very unappealing damages to the land, does this mean that we should simply shut the forests up tight and not allow any access at all?
I personally feel that if we want to enjoy the forests we should be allowed to, however we also have a responsibility to maintain the forests for future generations. In the past logging and cattle operations have seen the forests and rangelands as a resource that was theirs to use as they saw fit, and as someone who has grown up among these people I can tell you that they are aware of the finite nature of the resources. No rancher or logger that I have ever met wants to invest years of hard hard work and most of his life and income into an operation only to deplete the resources and leave themselves with nothing. Thankfully most of these people were happy to allow recreationalists to use their lands as well as the public land that they had claim to (leased land), however the last ten years I have watched as more and more of this land was closed to public access because of those who couldn't respect it.
THERE IS THE WHOLE PROBLEM, LACK OF RESPECT!
We all need to see that we aren't the only one who wants to use the public resources we are blessed with, it belongs to all and should be open to all.
Yes mistakes have been made but two wrongs don't make a right. Efforts need to be made to repair and prevent damage to the environment. This is where environmental watchgroups come into play, and I say good for Ford if they can support this type of care for the environment. However we as recreationalists need to also do our part in showing that we are not out to have a good time at any cost to the environment, we need to band together with one another and hold our fellow funfreaks in check if need be. Everyone needs to work together to find a universal plan that incorporates the desires of all, Simply trying to block all efforts by those who have different views of land use results in the same actions by them. Someone has to start the process of coming together in search of a fair and equal division of our reources.
I say that, as the people who have used these lands the most in the past we need to be the ones who admit our past wrongs and work towards a future that will ensure access and conservation in our public lands for the future.
If we continue to have the attitude that nothing is wrong with the way things are the environmentalists will continue to have ammunition to influence the public opinion against future use of public lands. If we can come together and admit past problems as well as presenting the evidence of a more responsible generation of users coming to the forests who can
work to preserve as well as use these resources we can show the public that the environmental radicals are the unreasonable group who have to be controlled.
Just my opinion,
p.s. Five inches of snow here in the valley today and there was plenty of fresh fluff in the mountains yesterday before this started.
Ottocontrol- gee, the name fits! If you took the time to read my post, you would pay attention to the fact that I also complain about the extremists, but extremists of all types, including, but not limited to, snowmobilers. One of the last things that I said was I didn't see the point in being around if I couldn't access these areas to enjoy them. I said extremists are no good, and environmentalists need to be held in check. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to read and understand what I wrote. It does, however, require someone a little bit better at spelling.
Oh, and by the way, I have absolutely no tree hugging friends, but I know lots of people that love the planet and want it to be here for everyone, not just "out of control" snowmobilers.
A forum community dedicated to snowmobile owners and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about performance, troubleshooting, trails, maintenance, riding tips, modifications, classifieds, accessories, and more!