SMS wrote in news:XoxDl.4477$im1.2282
@nlpi061.nbdc.sbc.com:

Rich wrote:
These people are the kind who want nature reserved only for their kind,
the hemp-sandal wearing KOOKS who like to protest G20 meetings. It
reminds me of the YUPPIE, latte-sipping urban envirokooks in California
who banned mountain bikes from wilderness areas for "degrading to the
environment" while they rode 1500lb horses all over the same place.

While it's true that mountain bikes are much less damaging to the trails
and wildlife than horses (and often less damaging than hikers), I don't
see what that has to do with:

'The welfare of the subject is more important than your photography.'


Because like all envirokooks, they are hugely prone to doomsaying and over-
reaction. Photography is not going to cause the extinction or even
marginal decline of birds. There are plenty of worse things, like Third
World population explosions, power wind mills, etc. 2 years ago they
banned rock climbing on some bluffs near Niagara Falls because they said it
could harm lichen on the rocks. They had no proof, no data, they just
decided to ban it. Even though lichen and climbers had existed for at least
40 years..