Re: Environmentalists

["Mary K. Krauss" <kraussberner@worldnet.att.net>]

 I'm not sure how to say "gimme a break" politely so I'll just say it. 
Nature can handle small changes pretty well.  We can wish landscapes would
never change and that new grasses wouldn't replace native grasses (which
themselves once crept in and displaced some other species), but that
attitude itself is anti-natural. Nature thrives on change--particularly in
this country where the landscape is volatile and regenerating itself all
the time (ie, biology of a land of fires, volcanoes, varied yearly weather
patterns, etc). 

If we'd all focus on the big things rather than on something as little as a
perfectly good environmental ingredient as straw and manure, we might get
somewhere (though we can focus on both I suppose....). For instance, living
in Los Angeles is a pretty unenvironmentally friendly act since the
landscape cannot provide enough water. Guilt is a big reason I moved to the
NW which seems better able to withstand all us humans.... Similarly, living
in wooden houses is pretty unsound if you are against logging.  Eating
salmon is pretty ridiculous if you wish the salmon weren't dying out. 

The main point is, having a control-every-behavior approach only alienates
people who might otherwise listen.  I agree one should erase one's
footprints, but the manure can stay....
----------
> From: LazyJArabs@aol.com
> To: 
> Subject: Re: Environmentalists
> Date: Monday, September 28, 1998 12:09 PM
> 
> i totally agree with you there. it's just that MOST of the reasons we are
> losing our "rights" to ride in most places is because of the
environmental
> damage irresponsible riders are doing (not just endurance). not everyone
has
> weed-free hay/feed and the runoff from a major rain event on a site which
is
> compacted and covered in manure can be very detrimental to the creeks and
> groundwater. i think our reputations might be improved if we took our
messes
> with us. i do it for that exact reason (that and my compost at home
always has
> room for more).
> 
> liz
> ----------
> Subj:	 Re:  Environmentalists
> Date:	9/28/98 12:05:04 PM Pacific Daylight Time
> From:	CMKSAGEHIL@aol.com
> To:	ridecamp@endurance.net
> 
> Subj:	Re: Enviornmentalists
> Date:	09/28/98
> To:	LazyJArabs@aol.com
> 
> In a message dated 98-09-28 14:05:12 EDT, you write:
> 
> << this is not environmentally sensitive. BCH leave no trace says put
your
> manure
>  back in the trailer and take it with you. >>
> 
> Whether or not scattering hay and manure is environmentally sensitive
depends
> entirely on where you are.  In heavily used areas, this would be a
problem.
> In some of our areas with dusty volcanic pumice that are in great need of
> biological components to build healthy soil, scattering hay and manure is
> TREMENDOUSLY helpful.  The problem is the mindset (whether it is in the
> bureaucracy or elsewhere) that somehow one centrally-generated set of
rules
> should apply to all situations.  What we need is to each have a better
> understanding of how nature works so that we can individually decide
which
> action fits which circumstances.
> 
> Heidi