 |
RE: [RC] Wild Horses - David LeBlancWish for wilderness and you will eventually be very sorry. What I'd like to see would be something in-between. Right now we have a choice between wilderness and eventually clear cut. For example, if I had to make a choice between seeing the area up near Index clear cut or wilderness, I'd take wilderness. Neither extreme really suits my needs. I can't easily get into the wilderness, and I don't want to ride in clear-cut. Plus, I think that part of the issue is that not everything is about what's most convenient for people. There's a lot of stuff more important in the grand scheme of things than whether I can go ride somewhere. There needs to be something in the middle. A way to designate land so that the emphasis is on low impact recreation and preservation. Something like wilderness, but a couple notches less stringent. Like Mary said, there's some gorgeous wilderness in the Cascades, and I'm really glad we have it. It's obvious most places when you cross the boundary. Unlike Mary, I've only ridden in the fringes of it. The three prettiest places I've ever ridden have been wilderness (Alpine Lakes area), might-end-up-wilderness up near Index and Redwood National Park. Forest that hasn't been cut in 60-70 years is nice, but just doesn't really compare. I'd just like it if it were more common to mark something as a recreation and preservation area so I could have my cake and eat it too. ============================================================ Common sense should also be a part of the decision making process. If you see someone who doesn't have any, hand them your tool box. ~ Lisa Salas - The Odd Farm ridecamp.net information: http://www.endurance.net/ridecamp/ ============================================================
|