P
pokeyYJ
Guest
This is from today (Sunday Aug, 17) this is a direct quote. I think that this would be a good letter to respond to and maybe get our point of view out in the public eye.
No hypocrisy
"Stephen Nielson, in his Aug. 13 Forum letter, is obviosly unable to discern the meaning of the word "environmentalists." As the "environmental" part of the word suggests, it refers to anyone who is interested in protecting the natural world. They believe that it may be vital to the human race to keep nature around for awhile, say, until we figure out how to replace our own oxygen, or an obscure plant yields a cure for cancer.
The big difference between hiking and off-highway vehicles is not that one is "elite" or "politically correct" but that walking through natural lands does not crush vegetation and cause erosion, disrupt the whole natural area with an ungodly noise, or pose a threat to the safety of not only the people involved, but the wildlife and, in some cases, other "recreationists." If an environmentalist simply wants to protect wild lands from the very things off-highway vehicles cause, tell me, where is the hypocrisy in that?
Pacifica Sommers
Salt Lake City
Whew!, I plan on writing to the Tribune and stating a rebutal that what we do is "Stay on existing trails, have a minimal impact of the evironment, and share the trails with other users."
Please write the Tribune and make a point that we are responsible users, and that we are a disturbed by people that recklessly abuse the land, as the next guy.
But, if I may make a suggestion, please keep the insults to a minimum. I think that it would look bad if we came off as a bunch of uneducated Rednecks that don't know how to hold a civil debate.
Thanx
Sean
No hypocrisy
"Stephen Nielson, in his Aug. 13 Forum letter, is obviosly unable to discern the meaning of the word "environmentalists." As the "environmental" part of the word suggests, it refers to anyone who is interested in protecting the natural world. They believe that it may be vital to the human race to keep nature around for awhile, say, until we figure out how to replace our own oxygen, or an obscure plant yields a cure for cancer.
The big difference between hiking and off-highway vehicles is not that one is "elite" or "politically correct" but that walking through natural lands does not crush vegetation and cause erosion, disrupt the whole natural area with an ungodly noise, or pose a threat to the safety of not only the people involved, but the wildlife and, in some cases, other "recreationists." If an environmentalist simply wants to protect wild lands from the very things off-highway vehicles cause, tell me, where is the hypocrisy in that?
Pacifica Sommers
Salt Lake City
Whew!, I plan on writing to the Tribune and stating a rebutal that what we do is "Stay on existing trails, have a minimal impact of the evironment, and share the trails with other users."
Please write the Tribune and make a point that we are responsible users, and that we are a disturbed by people that recklessly abuse the land, as the next guy.
But, if I may make a suggestion, please keep the insults to a minimum. I think that it would look bad if we came off as a bunch of uneducated Rednecks that don't know how to hold a civil debate.
Thanx
Sean
