[DIYSteve]

[Tsolo]

RodF – I’m with BigSteve on this one. I searched for 20 minutes for anything about the Sierra Club opposing the Suiattle Road opening, and I could find nothing. So unless you have something that Google doesn’t, I assume you’re just throwing stuff out there. Rules of debate say that the person making an assertion should provide evidence of that assertion. Otherwise, as someone once said, "What can be asserted without evidence can be dismissed without evidence."

[monorail]

My recollection is that the Sierra Club was opposed to the Suiattle Road rebuild, but I can't provide a link. I'm not a member, but from what I remember, they had the same objections I had: --the new road required destruction of acres of old growth forest, wetlands, and endangered species habitat --the road has been destroyed repeatedly over the past 40 years, and (according to the EA) will almost certainly be destroyed again in the near future. I think these are reasonable objections, particularly given the threat of channel migration. It was a high ecological cost for a road that probably won't last very long (in my opinion). I also think the case for rebuilding the road was reasonable; I just didn't happen to agree with it. I don't think people who supported the rebuild are earth-rapists, and I don't think people who opposed it are "anti-recreation."

[Bedivere]

[Naches Hiker]

Well I consider them against developed recreation. Look at the white pass expansion for example. They took the Forest Service to court over it.

[NacMacFeegle]

[Bedivere]

In your opinion. Apparently the courts didn't share it.

[DIYSteve]

[cefire]

[mb]

oh there's all sorts of range for nuance. being anti-building is neither pro nor anti recreation though it does restrict the particular types of recreation. but the quote i listed in my initial post is a strident 'no public recreation allowed' quote.

[DIYSteve]

The quote in your OP was from one member, likely taken out of context, and does not represent the Sierra Club's complex set of positions. I'll say it again: Your OP is based on a phony premise: a club that sponsors thousands of trips each is necessarily not "anti-recreation." I cannot know your subjective intentions, but it appears to be an attempt to start a overly simplistic black & white polarized debate.

[mb]

No, the quote is from someone who specifically represented himself as the speaker for the local Sierra Club Chapter. At a government meeting. Video: http://sanfrancisco.granicus.com/MediaPlayer.php?view_id=&clip_id=22408&caption_id=48813381 Note that there is a bit more context, that they support the docent led program. John Muir says: "Only by going alone in silence, without baggage, can one truly get into the heart of the wilderness. All other travel is mere dust and hotels and baggage and chatter." It is possible that this evolution from alone to docent led is based on some experiences which indicate damage.

[Malachai Constant]

Dude, anti Sierra Club has a very retro sound to it like something Nixon or Reagan might have said. To be hip in today's Brown movement you have to be anti PETA, WW, or anti Sea Shepard. Sierra Club as a strawman is laughable.

[mb]

if the sea shepherds testified at some hearing that dolphin meat should be sold in the us, i'd be wondering the same thing -- what happened? (there's other orgs out there which are against public access to this particular public land, but their arguments match their historical positions.)

[Kim Brown]