Site search
sponsored by
News
Sooner or later, we all find ourselves doing it. We want some activity to cease in our neighborhood. The activity may be legal and sanctioned, even traditional, but we don’t want it near us. In that mode, label us “A.” An “A” wants the government, or courts to take away other people’s rights to do something. Label these “other people” as “B.” As a side benefit, if the objectionable activity is banned, “A” might enjoy increased property values. Does “A” consider compensating “B” for the loss in rights? Hardly.
Rather, the usual strategy is to demonize “B” — his activity is “bad.” It is too noisy, smelly, dirty, or unsightly. Or, there is a chance, even if slight, for environmental change, maybe even damage. So “A” argues that the restrictions are for the common good, even if “B” is providing some real community benefit.
Specifically, this time, I’m referring to the area residents that object to off-road cycles on the Tenderfoot Trail. Why expect a group of citizens, cycle riders in this case, to give up rights to their recreation on National Forest lands? What will they get in exchange? Why expect the community to give up the tourist dollars? The answer, of course, is that cycle riders are “bad.”
Just like oil drillers are bad. And loggers, miners, real estate developers, Vail Associates, airports, farms, rock quarries, second-home owners, mountain bikers, horses, and hikers with dogs are bad. Heck, a group of plain, old, ordinary hikers is bad. (Check the wilderness rules.)
If we, as “A” people, continue to get more strident, and the government agrees to “our” demands, there is one inevitable result. We’ll more often find ourselves as the horrible “B” people. People that lose the right to do what they enjoy, or even lose their livelihood. Our community also loses. Those income producers, the tourists, the businesses, and the resource developers, are always “B” people, so how does a community generate income? Where do fuel and raw materials come from?
We’re stepping on our own toes here.
Why not, in our “A” roles, recognize that our own preferences don’t automatically trump the rights and needs of others? And why not clean up our own acts before tossing trite demons around?
In our “B” roles, why not be less noisy, smelly, dirty and unsightly? And why not take the extra effort to do our “thing” with minimum environmental impact?
But then, I’m a really bad person that admits to doing, or benefiting from, all of these bad activities. Well, except for the dog thing, there’s no excuse for dogs. (Joking!)
Rather, the usual strategy is to demonize “B” — his activity is “bad.” It is too noisy, smelly, dirty, or unsightly. Or, there is a chance, even if slight, for environmental change, maybe even damage. So “A” argues that the restrictions are for the common good, even if “B” is providing some real community benefit.
Specifically, this time, I’m referring to the area residents that object to off-road cycles on the Tenderfoot Trail. Why expect a group of citizens, cycle riders in this case, to give up rights to their recreation on National Forest lands? What will they get in exchange? Why expect the community to give up the tourist dollars? The answer, of course, is that cycle riders are “bad.”
Just like oil drillers are bad. And loggers, miners, real estate developers, Vail Associates, airports, farms, rock quarries, second-home owners, mountain bikers, horses, and hikers with dogs are bad. Heck, a group of plain, old, ordinary hikers is bad. (Check the wilderness rules.)
If we, as “A” people, continue to get more strident, and the government agrees to “our” demands, there is one inevitable result. We’ll more often find ourselves as the horrible “B” people. People that lose the right to do what they enjoy, or even lose their livelihood. Our community also loses. Those income producers, the tourists, the businesses, and the resource developers, are always “B” people, so how does a community generate income? Where do fuel and raw materials come from?
We’re stepping on our own toes here.
Why not, in our “A” roles, recognize that our own preferences don’t automatically trump the rights and needs of others? And why not clean up our own acts before tossing trite demons around?
In our “B” roles, why not be less noisy, smelly, dirty and unsightly? And why not take the extra effort to do our “thing” with minimum environmental impact?
But then, I’m a really bad person that admits to doing, or benefiting from, all of these bad activities. Well, except for the dog thing, there’s no excuse for dogs. (Joking!)
