I read this article and am I the only one that gets all worked up over it?
I dont see what problem the “destruction” they are talking about causes. EXCEPT for the yahoos that go through the wetlands that is. I am in total agreement that we need to stay out of the low lands. This so called “destruction” they are refering to is WAY less destructive then accepted practices such as…
Clearcutting a forest for example.
Example: A trail I often ride HAD signs all over it to “stay on trail” and they would often baracade the trail for no apparent reason to keep ATV’s out. Then last year they allowed loggers in who proceeded to bulldoze the entire trail flat, filling in low lands, cutting down hills, ect. They clearcut much of the forest and left a HUGE MESS. This gets no press?? The “bird watchers” are fine with this?? This is a common occurance everywhere too.
What’s so destructive about the trail getting a little wider to avoid deep water holes, or avoiding a fallen tree? What sort of problem does this cause for the wildlife?
How about a county that decides to cut a 2 lane blacktopped road through a forested area? Or widen a 2 lane into a 4 lane highway, thats not destructive??
Whew… I feel better now. Thanks for listening.