Originally Posted by swimteam101
Thanks for keeping it civil. I own an Cruiser BJ-40 and sleds. If we had the time and $ we would ride bikes too. Rallying behind the oil and gas industry to keep access is a tough sell for me and the 5% loss of rivers to dams and lakes for boating and sailing is ridiculous. Lakes and ocean cover most of the planet providing plenty of space for those activities. Lake fowell covering Glen Canyon is a crime. It's not mine or yours to give away or destroy. Compromising when it comes to protecting our natural wonders and wilderness is a terrible idea. We will never get it back. Cheers
Thanks for noticing my efforts at keeping this very hot topic, cool
I do not understand a few points in your post, and I want to offer a counter point for you to consider.
The guess-a-mate of 5% loss to rivers from dams, and lake powell, or fowell as you refer to it.
Do you object to this number as being to high, to low, or no objection to it's use as an estimated loss ?
I agree with you the vast majority of the surface of the earth is covered in water sutable for boating, fishing ect.....only a very small % of this water is suitable for our uses.
The problem is unless you live in florida, or Minnesota, or the coast ..there really is not very much inland water for those outdoor activities,
In utah and colorado, those resources are very rare.
These recreational water users have few options to enjoy water close to their homes. They tend to be good stewards of the water as well....Personally, I am willing to give up a little, share a little, of the limited river resources with our fellow water loving brothers. I am most definitely willing share....it is being closed out that I object to !
Calling lake Powell. ..lake Fowell, and claiming it is large scale environmental crime...seems a over reach to me.
Your statements ignores the many benifits to environment that lake powell has provided.
Have you considered how much lake powell power generation has saved us in terms of a reduction in air pollution?
Have you considered how much more coal, or oil has not been extracted, because that dam reduces dependence on those engery supplies.
Yes, the ecosystem has changed....but not significantly for the worst, the dam has not made the water toxic, there is no air or noise pollution from the dam, It has expanded recreational opportunities for other water lovers, that have few locations to enjoy the water in the manner they prefer.
To suggest that this beautiful lake, with all the benfits it has and does provided is fowel and criminal seems rather closed minded to me.
Be clear...there have been environmental changes to the area because of the dam, and these changes to river ecosystem both up and down stream, can reasonably be seen as negative...I agree....but .....when all aspects of the dam are considered, I think it has been more postive than negative....I know you feel different, I support your right to an opposing view and to express it !
In regards to " Compromising when it comes to protecting our natural wonders and wilderness is a terrible idea. ".....sure sounds good ! I do not agree with it.
The problem with your statement is that word "Compromissing " and how it is defined.
Wilderness act...many feel this is a wonderful " no compromise " way to protect that environment. ....when in fact, I would argue it is not.......The inhabitants of these areas are influenceed by the inhabitants outside of the boundaries. ... and the opposite is also true, these impacts in both direction can have negative effects to both sides !
Wilderness act, prevents environmetal professionals from using best mangement technology and practices, to minimize these harmful effects....so you have in effect...even in the wilderness act.."compremised" on protecting the enivorment because of a to rigid law !
In order to protect our environment. ..compromise is exactly the tool that is need !
And lastly your statement "We will never get it back", is just an urban ledgend, it is false.
There are many examples of where we have gotten it back....let me cite one near by example to you.
Approximately a 100 years ago in the mountains of colorado there was a well known mining industry, that caused massive environmental damage, .there were entire mountains and valleys strip of every single tree, to support the mines..huge forests were virtually completely wipe out !
Today, there are lush mature alpine forests there again...yep there are a few pockets of remaning YUCK....but the vast majority of the land impacted....we have gotten back ! Heck some of it even has wilderness status now ! This is not a unique example...there are many others.
I am sorry but your statement is simply factually incorrect in my view.
As recreational users of our great outdoors. ...we need emphasis our areas of agreement...we love outdoor adventure
We do not want our outdoors destroyed !
We need to repsect ours is not the only responsible way to enjoy the outdoors..., we need to respect and support other rec users rights !
Shutting out our fellow outdoor enthusiasts, bad mouthing them, or failing to support them is bad policy. We need to be more united... in our fights against .the usurpers, and spoliers of the outdoors we love....We need to acknowledge that some of the worst despoilers come from our ranks ! (Example...scout leader topling rocks in goblin valley )
Divided we are easily defeated...in unity there is strength !
OHV users should care about the problems of river rats....river rats should care about OHV problems...We need to help each other !
Lastly, my views on the environment and user confilct come from both my outdoor experinces, and my education as an aquatic biologist. I feel my views are based on science and pragmatism....I know for a fact there are environmental groups that misuse, and missunderstand, environmental sciences....That is a shame...the only thing worse than making a decision out of ignorance. ...is making it on false, distorted, inaccurate data that you mistakenly view as accurate, I think you may the victim of some of this.