The Mountains We Love: a different perspective!

I did not say I was disturbed by it, merely saddened. I perceived the use was an attempt to attack you personally...I

By the way "grammar nazi" is quite different from the plain word "nazi." And fwiw, I'm not personally outraged by your use of the term "nazi" - I simply think it was both lazy and antisocial usage (and yes, such usage is prevalent on the internet, I realize, and yes, over time, usage does redefine words). And I think Godwin had a good point in his response to this common usage.

Jim, I'm glad SW was not offended by my statement, altho my statement did not state he was not "liberal enough" either.  What I commented on was his language:

"Sorry but the language seem more like Glenn Beck's than Bernie Sanders.  And conflating wilderness extremism with reasonable objections to low flying aircraft doesn't speak to tolerance and understanding but is more like Rush Limbaugh than Dennis Kucinich "

in relation to his claim of not being a right-wing reactionary, but a socialist (and, later, a progressive).  Sen. Bernie is the only avowed democratic socialist in Congress and Rep. Dennis is certainly amongst the most progressive.  I felt I was not being perjorative or critical of him personally in that statement, just inflammatory language he was using.  I find it amusing you added a much stronger criticism of his language after you felt saddened by my statement.

Oh, well Pax Vobiscum and Straighten Up and Fly Right if God is Thy Co-pilot!

Oh yeah, nice big trucks SW!

Glad to provide some amusement. If you think those comparisons added more to the value of the thread with their descriptiveness than they drew away with their potential for fanning flames, more power to you. IMO you'd have lost none of the real content value simply leaving it at "conflating wilderness extremism with reasonable objections to low flying aircraft doesn't speak to tolerance and understanding."

The irony of this post is golden!

"Pot meets kettle"

The difference here is that I am pursuing an activity that is not only legal, but is accepted as a legitimate activity ( low level flight for photography ) In addition, not all people can enjoy these areas by hiking like we can. This land belongs to them as Americans just as much as it does to us. For many, including my passengers on this flight, a scenic flight is the only way they can ever get to see these areas first hand. You and others are whining like high school girls who got stood up on prom night, over the exercise of those freedoms and want to deny people access to the lands they own a stake in.

In exercising my rights to pursue this recreation, I take your wishes under consideration and fly in a manner that produces the least impact. You don't aknowledge that because your attitude is that I should not be allowed to do this under any condition. It is you and those like you who seem to think all of these lands should be allocated solely for you and everyone else who wants to pursue other activities that you dissaprove of should bloody well buggar off!

Obviously you are so obsessed about this issue that you failed to read the part about this mentality that has also banned paragliding, mountain biking, mountain boarding and are trying to ban horses, cell phones, Ipods and the list goes on. I am an advocate for allowing multiple activities and some tollerance for an occassional having to "endure" a moment of slight inconvienence so others can enjoy their activity as well. You are quite convinced that your "right" to not be offended or irritated trumps all other peoples rights to pursue legal and accepted activities. While perhaps untrue on this forum, the reality is that an overwhelming majority of people do not object and therefore congress and the Forest Service, Park Service  and BLM have found no basis to restrict this.

If this so ruins the quality of your life, lobby your representative and try to legislate the changes you seem so adamant about instead of whining on an Internet forum. I fully know about Godwins Law and I did not arbitrarily use Nazi and kook. I think the terms are quite applicable and I stand by that opinion ( after all that is all this amounts to is opinion ) fully and I see some in the environmental community as full blown nut jobs and Fascists. 

If you read my post, you'll see that I made no mention of my beliefs of wilderness, and whether flying low is appropriate or not. My statement was of the observation that you disregarded rules ("recommendations") that you were well aware of, and that those who didn't support your view you labeled "kooks", or were "wilderness nazis". You flew below the level "in a manner that produces the least impact". Unfortunately, that is your own definition which isn't held by the FAA (due to their recommendations). You support having "to endure a moment of slight inconvenience", I guess for the greater good. So whose "moment of slight inconvenience" is more important--yours, by not flying below established recommendations, or the wilderness user who is inconvenienced by your flight?

I've participated in numerous wilderness discussions over the years, and your position is a common one and presents a conundrum for all land managers. Everybody wants to do their pet recreation, and do it wherever they damned well please. Mountain bikers think they should be allowed to ride since they're human powered, and claim they make less impact than horses. In national parks, it's illegal to pick a flower, but climbers can drill holes in the rock and place permanent bolts. (By the way, I'm both a climber and mt. biker in case that should matter.) I've talked to wilderness users who want wilderness to be a black box, an Ultima Thule--knowledge of what lies within its boundaries detracts from the wilderness experience itself.

For the most part, everyone wants to do what they want to do. And in this society, what you do may impact others. You claim wilderness proponents impact your ability to show nature to others--wilderness users claim your activities impact their experience. Therein lies the dilemma--who wins, who decides who wins, and what process is used?

Deleted

Deleted

Deleted