To borrow a line from radio talk show dude Glenn Beck, I
think my head is going to explode.
I'm pretty beat up and bloody from getting run over by the
environmental bandwagon that is sweeping this planet. I refuse to jump on-and
it's not because I don't care about the environment-far from it-and so I
continue to get run over because every time you turn on the TV or look at the Internet
or open a newspaper it's "eco-friendly this and global warming that."
Quick, tell me one thing in the last six months that hasn't
been blamed on global warming, or now as it's being referred to, climate
There are several instances these past few months that have
me at the brink of getting pushed over the edge, but it was something I pulled
out of our files the other day that made me want to collapse onto the floor.
You know those annoying insert subscription cards that are
in every magazine-including ours-where you can mail in (postage paid) to sign
up for a magazine? Well, here is what was written on one of those cards and
mailed in (postage paid, of course) to me from Rock Springs, WY.
"Your magazine and articles/pictorials of unabashed off trail use in national
forests is disgusting. Two stroke machines should be phased out and riders
restricted to groomed trails on public lands."
I blame part of that mentality on today's media, regardless
of whether it's TV, newspapers, magazines or the Internet. I also blame part of
that mentality on just plain ignorance and laziness. Some people believe what
they read and leave it at that, regardless of how wrong it is. They believe it
when they read, "Snowmobiles are bad. Period."
Yes, I'm part of media establishment but it doesn't mean I'm
proud of what goes on elsewhere in that industry. In fact, the mainstream media
is about the last place I go for accurate information on most things and even
then, I always question it.
I'm not naïve or ignorant when it comes to environmental
issues, I just choose to be informed. That's why I refuse to jump on the
environmental bandwagon. Much of what is said is misstated and inaccurate. So,
when I read something in the mainstream media, I research it-I try to find the
other side. I'm sure that you have discovered just as I have that you can find
research that supports just about any premise. And if the research doesn't
support a particular environmental group's stand, they work it (read: make it
up) until it does.
Two examples, both surrounding the tedious ongoing debate on
snowmobiling in Yellowstone
National Park. If you
were to believe the mainstream media (which is spoon fed by environmental
groups), you would think that snowmobiling would increase in the Park under the
newly proposed plan by the National Park Service. That's not just misleading,
it's a lie. The mainstream media would have you believe that snowmobile use
would increase to 720 snowmobiles a day. But anyone who has followed this
debate knows the present rule already allowed 720 sleds a day into the Park.
That number has since changed to a proposed 540 per day. An average-at best-of
about 250 snowmobiles entered the Park each day last winter. That would be
quite a jump if that many sleds did enter the Park but it would take a while
for that number to build up. Regardless, it's misleading to say the number of
sleds that would be allowed in the Park is increasing when the number was legally
already in place.
Second, if you paid attention to the September, 2007, issue
of SnoWest ["Yellowstone Winter Use
Plan Study Supports Snowmobiling," page 90], you saw a story on studies that
showed everything from sound to bison population to air quality and more, each
showing snowmobiling has no adverse affect on the Park or its workers or
animals. Did you see that information in the mainstream media (those NPS
studies are available to everyone)? Probably not.
The mainstream media doesn't do very well in the research
department or they would find things like that out. They just take the green
groups word for it. And make no mistake, the preservationists are out to win,
regardless of the cost, whether it be in terms of dollars or the truth. Remember
who we're up against: people who are paid to save the planet. It doesn't take a
rocket scientist to figure out where their motivation comes from. The more fear
they create, the more money they make.
Maybe that's where I am a little naïve. I still believe
truth will win out and that the good guys will prevail. I admit it gets discouraging
with a judge makes a ruling based on weak science or emotion or because the
environmentalists made a better argument than those working to keep our public
lands open to the public.
But I still have hope there's enough common sense out there
to provide balance in the environmental movement.
Okay, so I don't have a litany of ideas on how to combat
global warming except one-don't believe everything you read but instead do some
research and find out for yourself.
That's what I'm going to continue to do.