If you don't like motorized use, you already have Wilderness areas and Wilderness "study" areas that you can visit without being molested by the motorized use, why not just go there and be happy. Instead it seems that you need to make everything the way you want .....
Where did you get that idea, I haven't said anything remotely like that. In fact, here's what I've said:
Originally Posted by smokepole
Nice try but I'm content with the small fraction of public land that's wilderness staying that way.
Try reading what's on the page before spouting off.
My mistake for not clarifying "you' actually was a reference to "you" in the third person, not you directly. But you, (not in the third person) continue to criticise and call names and that is another weakness with your argument when you are trying to make a point and not make enemies.
The points of the BHA and followers are all selfish and self serving, that is where I have a problem with the Wilderness debate, because it continues to suit only one side of the whole issue. How the existing Wilderness is used is acceptable to me, I just get weary of the continual attempt at creating more and locking up more land to a limited use and access.
Originally Posted by RJY66
I was thinking the other day how much I used to hate Bill Clinton. He was freaking George Washington compared to what they are now.
