[at-l] Cost to remove a blowdown

[RoksnRoots@aol.com (RoksnRoots@aol.com)]

In a message dated 3/8/2002 1:26:23 PM Eastern Standard Time, 
yumitori@montana.com writes:


> You are essentially arguing for tools that violate the regulations
> governing federally designated wildernesses because of convenience.



    *** Actually, if you read it closer, I'm analyzing whether those 
regulations were formulated to balance political devices rather than an 
actual wilderness need which precludes using chainsaws to maintain trails. It 
isn't an argument for convenience, its an argument to see if we are jumping 
through hoops set by persons with less than a basic respect for wilderness 
who are making it difficult for us unnecessarily... 
     The question then is if the restriction exists because the actual act of 
chainsawing conflicts with wilderness, or it exists mainly to satisfy 
political balances based on deals designed to please opponents of wilderness 
preservation. Once a wilderness is designated, it should be held unto itself 
and not exist in definition as the end result of deal making and compromises. 
It should be wilderness in the political mind as well and off-limits. When 
seen this way, the simple act of keeping a trail open by using a chainsaw 
during a designated period is *not* that great an offense against 
wilderness...


> 
>     When you ask for regulations to be set aside for convenience, you
> simply create an opening for other violations on the same grounds. Shall
> we also allow snowmobiles into wilderness areas because they are
> otherwise inaccessible to the handicapped? or the elderly? Or those of
> use too overweight or out of shape to get there without this
> convenience?


    ***  The answer is simple, No. This is exactly what I was saying. The 
system is making it difficult for volunteers because it is treating bogus 
contentions on the same level as basic maintenance. The chainsaw should be 
considered by its direct relationship to wilderness rather than an attached 
one to politics. Wilderness use upkeep should be the one and only valid 
exception for practical reasons and nothing else. I'd hate to be both 
carrying the burden of wilderness while volunteering and an additional extra 
handicap stone put their by people trying to get even rather than upholding a 
wilderness value. In this case, I believe the restriction to be based mainly 
on political complication rather than potential intrusion...  


> 
>     Personally I think it shows wisdom for the government and volunteers
> who maintain trails in the wilderness areas to limit themselves in the
> same way visitors are limited. 
> 


     ***   I see it as business as usual blind politics and catering to 
tricksters looking for loopholes and excuses...   


--- StripMime Report -- processed MIME parts ---
multipart/alternative
  text/plain (text body -- kept)
  text/html
---