Let's pave it. Then we can drain the Colorado River so we can pave roads
all over the Grand Canyon. After that we could plug up all those pesky hot pots
in Yellowstone so we can pave it as well.Mt Everest can be next! After
Everest we could drain the Ocean so I can drive to Hawaii or even the
Mariana's trench. Let's pave everything.
LOL, the lack of roads is no problem. People enter the wilderness at risk and
the government is misrepresenting the role of governement as baby sitters and
parental oversight in affair that don't concern them. We can
abolish recsue squads first before we destroy the internment with more roads and
people going into the wilderness unprepared.The spokesman here is
another left winger dependent who fears his own existence. People die, get over
it. Life is not about government oversight, life is about risk and if you
don't like risk then stay home with your teddy bears.
@My2CentsI don't know about that... left wingers tend to hate
developing anything in parks. They're the ones who most strongly disagree
with Skilink for instance.
I would love to see the Wave but under the currant style of 'land
management' will never be able to. Limiting access and entrance to these
beautiful places to only those who are physically capable is not right. Having
an access road to the Wave would harm nothing and would allow handicapped people
and families with children to enjoy the area also. The lottery system for
permits also has contributed to the deaths this summer. People unfamiliar with
the area don't want to have to wait and lose their allotted time slot to
see the Wave, so they go irregardless of the weather/heat conditions. You
shouldn't have to get a permit to see our public lands. I don't agree
with 'wilderness designation' of areas outside of national or state
parks either. They serve no purpose except to lock people out of our public
lands. If no one can see them or use them, they are a waste of money and
manpower and serve only environmental groups and politicians who use them as
tools for political grandstanding and 'fundraising'. Public lands
belong to the public, not environmentalists and NGO's.
Rainer Huck never saw a road he didn't like or an area that he does not
want to pave a road to (there is no road of any sort to the wave now.) This is
a delicate natural wonder, and only 20 people per day are allowed to go and you
need to apply for a permit to go. Pave a road there and you would ruin it in a
year. You've got your choice--ruin the area or keep it pristine. Huck
is opposed keeping anything pristine.
A novel argument, to be sure, but like all arguments that relay on cleverness
rather than thought to make a point, it can easily be reversed to turn against
you. The pages of this paper carry stories every day of fatalities on our
roads. If only those people had been walking in a wilderness area instead of
driving on a highway. Think of all the lives that could be saved. Many, many
more than three.As to sharing the land, there are thousands of acres
of federal land in Utah reserved for the sole, singular purpose of automobile
use. In fact, a pedestrian can be arrested for setting foot on these public
lands. Surely Mr. Huck would have no objections to opening these locked up
lands to multiple use and allowing hikers and cyclists onto the interstate
highway system. It's all about sharing and equal access to public land for
all to benefit, right? The car and truck occupants would have no problem seeing
a pedestrian in the passing lane. It wouldn't detract from their enjoyment
of the highway experience. What harm could come from such a selfless move?
Rainer Huck, lobbyist for the off road vehicle industry and hater of anything
that resembles protecting the natural environment. 'Nuff said.
There should be a few wild places on the earth that you have to walk to get to
not drive! If you are too lazy to walk to get there, go to the millions of other
places you can drive to.
I wonder if Mr. Huck has a plan to pay for the paving and maintenance of the
roads he'd like to have crisscross every wilderness area in Utah. And, Mr.
Huck, I've been in wilderness areas, and I've been in areas where ATVs
and other vehicles are allowed, and there's no comparison; the immense
silence of a wilderness area is much more preferable than listening to an ATV
Moabmom is right, pave it! Pave it all!I hate the thought of having to
walk anywhere. And I especially hate the thought of being someplace where I
can't hear and smell ATVs and lots and lots of other people. If an ATV
can't go someplace then I certainly don't want to be there.
The Americans With Disabilities Act could logically be extended to attractions
on public lands. The letter writer makes a powerful point that many Americans
are excluded from public lands because of their physical limitations. It's
plainly not fair.This isn't a cry for "paving
everything," and mocking this letter by pushing it to the extreme fails to
address the valid points. The "reverse" logic above doesn't stand,
either, because it compares apples to oranges (roads to wilderness). This
letter ought to be taken seriously.
There are thousands of places in the world I'd like to visit, but even if I
had the money, I wouldn't live long enough. I take comfort in knowing that
these places exist and that I can enjoy them through photographs and the
experiences of those who are fortunate enough to see them firsthand. No one can go everywhere, and society doesn’t have to accommodate every
person’s disability and impediment. What part of this concept does the ATV
crowd not understand?If there had been a road to the Wave years ago,
Mr. Huck and his throttle-happy friends would have destroyed it way back then.
Why not build a freeway? How sad that Mr. Huck would exploit the
deaths of three good people to further his own subversive, anti-wilderness,
Mountanman: "There should be a few wild places on the earth that you have
to walk to get to not drive! If you are too lazy to walk to get there, go to the
millions of other places you can drive to."I find myself in rare
agreement with the man from Hayden Lake. It shows that there are no clean lines
in this discussion. Bravo.