Originally posted by schmik What about all these huge cities and roads we have built.... ooohh the pain, the pain. It is an environmental travesty.
Sure the scar will be there but it will be filled with trees and grass.
So what about fires, floods, storms etc? Should we ban 'mother nature' from entering the woods?
Building a city or a road is not a travesty - and I never said it was! They have a purpose. What purpose does the hillside-shredding serve that couldn't be fulfilled by climbing a bare rock slope instead? That scar will NOT be filled with grass and trees in any short time...
Originally posted by schmik I have seen an entire peninsula disappear overnight due to a huge storm. It just washed away. Was this good or bad? Neither, it just happened. I'm sure it took thousands of years for the peninsula to form.
And that is relevant to a deliberate human action HOW?
Originally posted by schmik Just to be clear my philosophy is : The people that want to protect and maintain an area are usually the ones that use it.
True custodians of an area want to protect it and maintain it. This includes using it.
True custodians of an area would indeed use, protect, and maintain it. No argument there. I sure did not see any evidence in that clip that the hill climber group was doing much to maintain things, though. I suppose you could say that they limited their destruction to running up the one trench ripped into the slope, instead of digging new ones all across the area, but that's about it...
Originally posted by schmik The green movement of "BAN EVERYTHING" must be stopped.
And just who exactly has talked about "banning everything" here? Some people have mentioned banning this activity (I wasn't one of them, by the way), but you're the one raising the "ban everything" flag here...
Originally posted by schmik "we can do whatever we want because it doesn't really hurt anything worth worrying about".
No one condones this attitude. And not all people that enter 'nature' have this attitude. But is sure is a 'cool' and 'now' to project this onto people.
Well, let's see. You see responses to the clip that decry the damage being done, so you respond by calling them an insulting term "greenies", by implying that none of them have been out of a city and don't know anything about nature or much of anything else, and then you launch into a defense of the hillclimbers doing whatever they want because they are caretakers of the land and it'll recover really quickly on its own. To me, that sounds a lot like your philosophy is what I wrote. Sounds like you *do* condone it. And, there are people with that attitude, so your "no one condones this attitude" is false.
Originally posted by schmik Pretty soon people will be asking "Not if the bear does or does not sh 1t in the woods, but if he is allowed to".
mike
Strawman argument. Nobody but you has raised this spectre of banning everything or of having to get permission to do anything...
And I notice you never responded to the point about how long it actually takes to recreate a true soil from the raw dirt left in the scars created by the hill climbers (where the scars haven't been trenched down to bedrock...).
Jim