It looks beautiful, doesn't it? A prestine, untouched-by-human-hands waterfall in the desert. It would be a shame if mankind came in and built a road in this prestine environment, right?
There's only one problem with that notion: This is not a natural waterfall. It was created by dynamite in 1873 as part of the process of opening up a natural cleft in a cliff, barely adequate to admit a mule, to a width capable of admitting wagons. From then on until 1984, a period of 111 years, it was part of a road -- buried in the rubble created by all that dynamite blasting until a freak el niño flood washed out the roadbed and exposed this rocky base underneath. In short, this "prestine" "natural" waterfall in the desert is about as natural as the camera that took this photo.
Which doesn't stop radical environmentalists such as Jeremy Rifkin (he who wants to kill all but a few million of humankind in order to take us all back to living nasty, short, brutish lives as hunter-gatherers) from claiming it's natural and filing lawsuits against the BLM to close it to human traffic.
Upstream from the waterfalls (there are five of them, all created by dynamite, not by nature), the brush has taken over. The radical environmentalists have told the BLM to keep people out or risk another lawsuit. The BLM, as a result, has posted a sign at the base of this canyon forbidding people from cutting brush. The problem is that if you don't cut the brush, the trail up-canyon to the old mines and ghost towns becomes impassable, thus why people have illegally cut the brush in the bottom picture in order to keep the trail open. (Well, actually, it was a BLM work crew working on tamarisk removal that cut the brush, but strictly speaking it wasn't legal for them to do so). Denying access via the brush overgrowing the trail does not matter to the radical environmentalists, because their goal is to eliminate humanity from the planet as a blight, so why do they care that they're impairing the ability of people to enjoy their heritage? As far as the radical environmentalists are concerned, "human heritage" is an oxymoron, because they admit nothing created by humanity as being beneficial. To the radical environmentalists, art, engineering, science, mathematics, all of those are simply distasteful defecations by a bunch of monkeys. All art, all music, all that humanity has ever strived for or achieved, to them has no more importance than the random wanderings of a slug in a garden.
I count myself as being an environmentalist. I do not believe that human beings have a right to go out and destroy other people's groundwater, air, or heritage. But in the fight over this particular canyon that I hiked up last week, I come down strictly on the side of the folks who say that the right of access to this canyon is more important than preservation of some mythical "prestine" environment that hasn't existed since 1873. Sadly, my view appears to be a minority in what passes as the "environmental movement" today, which is all about hating humanity and wanting to eliminate humanity from the planet, not about preservation of not only nature but of our heritage.
-- Badtux the Hiking Jeeper Penguin
Hello, Mr Penguin.
ReplyDeleteMore and more, I find those environmental groups falling out of favor in my eyes.
I have been an environmentalist at least since I was eight years old.
I learned environmentalism by the banks of the Pecos River, from hunting in the Guadalupe Hills and out on the San Miguel.
I supported a few of those groups through the 80's and early 90's, probably more as a reaction against James Watt.
The odd thing these days is that it is easier for me, as a lifelong progressive (when no one spoke much about progressivism), to talk to the people on the far right than to talk to the people on the far left.
The far right is insular. They aren't much used to people calling them on their bullshit.
The far left is accustomed to shouting over the bullshit.
One prime example that is recent is how Steinam referred to the media treatment of Hillary during the primary campaigns as "pornographic." Absolute bullshit.
The left uses words to mean things other than what they mean.
Strange days, these.
...I will simply say "welcome to my daily world, oh Wrangler-laden overdressed flippered one". The on-going and growing conflict between the purist community and anyone who doesn't agree with its views is becoming the sort of strange battleground that makes old silverbacks like me start to look with a passionate kind of anticipation toward that shiney gold ring that says "retirement"...
ReplyDeleteThe problem with all those 'rights' is that there are so many monkeys anymore, and so many of them are so stupid. If you allow them those rights pretty soon your favorite places will be over run and ruined.
ReplyDeleteEnvironmentalists are not always right, but they do help create a balance.
I'm thankful that a lot of these monkeys can't exercise their 'rights' in the national park here.
Common sense is dead in oh so many areas due to a small number of extremists. Why should the environment be any different?
ReplyDeleteI've been an environmentalist all my life, and I haven't given any money to Greenpeace. Anybody involved with ELF should simply go to prison. These people have done a lot of damage in the eyes of the public in the name of the environment.
the earth firsters, greenpeace, and the other eco-weenies give me a rash on my half-breed ass.
ReplyDeletesome of those motherfuckers were actually active down in the mountains near san diego protesting the crews that were fighting the fires.
stupid. vile. motherfuckers.
they are not acceptable company for a ride in my wilderness.
Hey if you can't manage to hike to these areas without cutting brush to do so, maybe you should just stay on the porch. I can make it through these areas, and i don't have to clear a path to drag my cooler and my trash up the mountain.
ReplyDeleteHow many casual hikers do you see carrying machetes to get through to these areas? Answer: None. The brush cutting isn't by those folks.
Destroying humanity is helping the environment? Who knew Bush was going green...
ReplyDeleteActually, Fade, the brush here is too thick to get through without cutting it back a bit. All you've seen is the little piece of thinner brush that I took a photo of, the thicker brush is so thick that if I took a photo all you'd see would be a blur of green because there's no air between the brush and the camera. You don't know what this brush is like, but it's impassable even for the burros except where it's been cut. I've seen burros try to smash through the brush to get to the other side of the canyon, it's impressive, they manage to go about three yards and then the brush just stops them dead, and burros are a *lot* stronger than human beings. And yes, *every* hiker going up this particular canyon has a little saw strapped to his waist, mostly to cut firewood, but also to take care of the brush.
ReplyDeleteAs for the old fart's notion that people shouldn't be hiking up this canyon, the number of people willing to hike eight miles with 4,000 foot altitude gain is not a very long list. There's little danger of this particular canyon getting "loved to death".
I'm not particularly interested in having a road re-built up this canyon. For one thing, I've hiked it twice and examined it closely to see what it'd take to do so, and basically it'd cost too many millions of dollars for no real benefit to the public. But there needs to be some common sense here. Folks need to be able to *legally* build a trail up this canyon - a trail that's out of the stream (right now people keep to the stream for major parts of the trip because it's the only place not overgrown with brush) and that is close to the canyon walls so that there's little environmental damage due to people smashing, hacking, and slashing their way through the brush. But common sense apparently ain't too common nowdays...
- Badtux the Sensical Penguin