Not part of the Pave the Planet Movement?

Well, the good folks talking access were addressing Federal lands, not
entirely "wilderness" or the Pristine.

For good measure the human species is rapidly decimating habitat and
populations of our cousins the apes, including cannibalism for those with a
gourmet flair.

We can't even get along with humans!  Maybe we ought to go back to eating
one another, ease some pressure on apes.

So I'd suggest we carefully access what's already open, including Clint
Eastwood's ranch (had to get that in).  Seems reasonable use doesn't entail
destruction.  If we want to preserve totally, then no one should gain entry.

Haven't thought about things naturally for a long time

S.



----- Original Message -----
From: "Betty Alfred" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Thursday, May 18, 2000 8:43 AM
Subject: Re: Outdoor Accessibility


> I will be the first to promote this unless I discover that it will serve
to
> destroy currently pristine habitat.
>
> Thoughts from a rabidly disability rights-minded person with a disability
> (Did I say that?  Tell me I didn't just say that):
>
> We should be able to go anywhere that nondisabled people go, but the truth
is
> that too many humans have not been good stewards of the planet.  There are
> species still trying to recover following our wholesale misuse of DDT.
The
> American Bald Eagle has been removed from the Endangered List, and placed
on
> the Threatened List.  That's one step better, but he is not out of danger
> yet.
>
> Migratory song birds may have the protection of the federal ban of the use
of
> DDT in one country, but that's just one country.  Unfortunately, so I've
> read, the United States has not prohibited the manufacture of DDT, nor is
> there presently associated laws governing it's export.
>
> BTW: I don't have a source to quote right now.  If anyone does, I would
love
> to know.  When I have time, I'll research this properly.  I have the 50
CFR
> (Code of Federal Regulations, governing Wildlife and Fisheries, but that
only
> covers the protection of wildlife within the United States.
>
> The problem is that migratory song birds don't need a green card (U.S.
> reference) to move from one country or another.  They just pick up and go
> (this was not said without some jealousy).  Plus, they do it twice a year.
> If their winter habitat does not enjoy the benefits of wildlife
protection,
> they still may be under threat.
>
> There are scores of examples in various species of fish, reptiles,
mammals,
> and birds, but the point is that humans have caused disability in the
animal
> kingdom, with wanton disregard.
>
> (Yes, I did use the word "disability" to yank on your heartstrings.
> Shameless, ain't I?)
>
> That having been said, I add only this: I am not focusing my attention on
> trying to deny people with disabilities the right of access.  I am saying
> that I don't think humans in general need to go in places that are still
> pristine, as much as those places need to remain pristine.
>
> I would love to hear what other people think about this.  Having been a
> nature lover for so long, I have pondered this very subject many times.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> In a message dated 05/17/2000 11:10:15 PM Eastern Daylight Time,
> [log in to unmask] writes:
>
> << Please help us to determine ways to make our public lands more
>  accessible to people of all abilities.  Your assistance in forwarding
>  the attached email message to people with disabilities can help us to
>  determine appropriate recommendations to Congress on how to improve
>  accessibility on Federal Lands.
>   >>
>