Demo-Fee update: OPPOSE - HR 3283

In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

--------------- Demo-Fee update ----------------------
OPPOSE PERMANENT RECREATION FEE BILL HR 3283

Is that you HAHA Hanson?

Are you really bothered by the Repuglican attempt to pay for
their war deficit by taxing the little people who want to
use THEIR National Forest Lands? Perhaps you would also be
outraged at the Repuglican subsidies to the timber industry
which allow them to cut down those forest lands without
paying the full cost? Quick, write all those Repuglican
congressmen and complain. You are good at pasting spam, so
surely, they will listen to you.

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address:
e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
------------------------------------------------------------
--

In the interest of fair reporting, the Fee Demo plan came
about during the Clinton years. It is not a Republican
scheme. If your blinders are set so narrow as to think that
this is a funding source to offset the war effort, you need
take another look around you.

"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article
<[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

--------------- Demo-Fee update ----------------------
OPPOSE PERMANENT RECREATION FEE BILL HR 3283

Is that you HAHA Hanson?

Are you really bothered by the Repuglican attempt to pay
for their war deficit by taxing the little people who want
to use THEIR National Forest Lands? Perhaps you would also
be outraged at the Repuglican subsidies to the timber
industry which allow them to cut down those forest lands

without

Quoted message said:

paying the full cost? Quick, write all those Repuglican
congressmen and complain. You are good at pasting spam, so
surely, they will listen to

you.

Quoted message said:

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address:
e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
------------------------------------------------------
--------

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In the interest of fair reporting, the Fee Demo plan came
about during the Clinton years. It is not a Republican
scheme. If your blinders are set so narrow as to think that
this is a funding source to offset the war effort, you need
take another look around you.

I don't know anything about it, other than what I got from a
quick scan of the posting. As I read it, the latest bill was
introduced by a Repuglican.

Besides, Old Captain Billy was a Southern Democrat and about
the only difference between the old Southern Democrats and
Repuglicans is the name...

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address:
e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
------------------------------------------------------------
--

Fee Demo is an old idea that has been around for years. It
is growing and growing to become an insidious attempt to
place public lands and facilities into the hands of private
enterprise. It comes up, and gets defeated, and comes up
again. Each time it ratchets up the costs that visitors will
be forced to pay.

Fee Demo started out as a pretty simple thing, and it even
made sense. Basically, the forest service has X number of
dollars. 90% of visitors to National Forests visit 10% of
the facilities, and 10% of visitors go the the remaining 90%
of the lands. The Forest Service spends its money on the
places where the masses go, and it calls upon the few that
go the other areas to pay a nominal fee for support services
from the Forest Service. Fee Demo says that if private
enterprise comes in and provides additional facilities that
attract visitors, then those visitors should pay to visit
those attractions. It further states that even if visitors
do not visit the facilities of the private enterprise, they
should pay to visit the lands operated by the Forest
Service. If the Forest Service sets the fee at the proper
level, then people will go to the facilities operated by the
private enterprise. Basically, if you go to the forest to
camp, and you have to pay $50 to get into the park, or you
can pay $65 to stay at the resort and use the boat, sleep in
a bed, eat indoors, etc., then why will you pay $50 to be
eaten by bugs? You should be able to be eaten by bugs for
free, but if you visit for free, then you will not visit the
resort operated by private enterprise, and that will erode
the value of hte private enterprise because visitors will be
faced with paying $65 or nothing.

Do you begin to see that Fee Demo is a bad thing? There are
other even more insidious things about Fee Demo, but they
only make the argument against Fee Demo even stronger. Fee
Demo, as it stood as the Wilderness Pass Program, was a
reasonably acceptable program. It has faults that I am sure
Hansen is more than willing to expound upon, but I am
willing to accept that old program as pretty reasonable.
(The Wilderness Pass Program has failed on a statewide basis
for California's State Parks and Forests, I haven't followed
its effectiveness - or changes - as it applies to the
National Parks and Forests.) If Fee Demo was capped at
asking backcountry visitors to pay a small fee for the extra
services they need relative ot backcountry travel, then I
would be OK with it, and Hansen would not be so mad. But,
Fee Demo will not stay as a small fee to visit backcountry
areas, and it should be stopped. Fee Demo is an insidious
seizure of public lands by private enterprise. Visitors to
public lands will be subjected to the same charges to have a
remote forest experience as the people that go to the forest
resorts. You will pay the same to be eaten by bugs as you
will pay to sleep in a hotel bed and eat in the cafeteria.
You will pay the same to walk along a babbling creek as you
will pay to jetski across the lake.

Fee Demo is a cession of public lands to private enterprise.

"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

In article <[email hidden]>,
[email hidden] says...

Quoted message said:

In the interest of fair reporting, the Fee Demo plan came
about during

the

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Clinton years. It is not a Republican scheme. If your
blinders are set so narrow as to think that this is a
funding source to offset the war

effort,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

you need take another look around you.

I don't know anything about it, other than what I got from
a quick scan of the posting. As I read it, the latest bill
was introduced by a

Repuglican.

Quoted message said:

Besides, Old Captain Billy was a Southern Democrat and
about the only difference between the old Southern
Democrats and Repuglicans is the

name...

Quoted message said:

--
Eric Swanson --- E-mail address:
e_swanson(at)skybest.com :-)
------------------------------------------------------
--------

"Eric Swanson" <swanson@nospam_on.net> wrote in
message "]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

[email hidden] says in article

<[email hidden]>,

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

--------------- Demo-Fee update ----------------------
OPPOSE PERMANENT RECREATION FEE BILL HR 3283

[Eric]

Quoted message said:

Is that you HAHA Hanson? Are you really bothered by the
Repuglican attempt to pay for their war deficit by taxing
the little people who want to use THEIR National Forest
Lands? Perhaps you would also be outraged at the
Repuglican subsidies to the timber industry which allow
them to cut down those forest lands without paying the
full cost? Quick, write all those Repuglican congressmen
and complain.

[hanson] ......ahahahaha..."Yes" to all, Eric, you feeble
old hillbilly and NOx refugee from LA. It looks as if the
fusel in your moonshine has clouded your memory and makes
you intensely partisan like most green turds are. Listen,
here is the repost for the refreshment of your memory and
your benefit:

"Environmental turdism runs across and far, far beyond
political and ideological party lines. The right wing,
conservatives, have an equal if not bigger number of green
turds amongst them, then the Lefties do. Turdism/Turdry
begins when principally noble ideas are exploited for
personal gain. Heuristic turdism is so vile because the
[censored], the green [censored], expanded it successfully into
"Create a fear and feed off it".

As you can see, Eric, both, Repuglican and Democrapians, are
at it. Don't let it get to you or you will become even more
depressed and you'll begin to suffer from Tooker Gomberg
syndrome. Read it here:
"]news:[email hidden]

And here, for your special salavtion is the entire
green bible:

***** Quotes from environmental leaders. start: *****

"It doesn't matter what is true ... it only matters what
people believe is true ... You are what the media define
you to be. Greenpeace became a myth, and a myth-
generating machine." -- Paul Watson, co/founder of
Greenpeace and Sea Shepard

"If you don't know an answer, a fact, a statistic, then ....
make it up on the spot ... for the mass-media today ... the
truth is irrelevant." -- Paul Watson in Earthforce: An Earth
Warrior's Guide to Strategy.

"A lot of environmental messages are simply not accurate.
But that's the way we sell messages in this society. We use
hype." -- Dr. Jerry Franklin, Ecologist, Univ.of Washington

"We have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified,
dramatic statements, and make little mention of any doubts
we may have. Each of us has to decide what the right balance
is between being effective and being honest."
- Stephen Schneider (Stanford professor who first sought
fame as a global cooler, but has now hit the big time as a
global warmer)

"A global climate treaty must be implemented even if there
is no scientific evidence to back the greenhouse effect." --
Richard Benedict, an employee for the State Department
working on assignment for the Conservation Foundation

"We already have too much economic growth in the United
States. Economic growth in rich countries like ours is the
disease, not the cure." -- Paul Elrich, Stanford U biologist
and Advisor to Vice President Gore

"We in the Green movement, aspire to a cultural model in
which the killing of a forest will be considered more
contemptible and more criminal than the sale of 6-year-old
children to Asian brothels." -- Carl Amery, Green Party of
West Germany

"I got the impression that instead of going out to shoot
birds, I should go out and shoot the kids who shoot birds."
-- Paul Watson, founder of Greenpeace and Sea Shepherd

-----***** end: Quotes from environmental leaders *****-----

***** These quotes do make you realize that *****

= The green movement was always & only a sick machination= &
= a cover to get $$$ grants, permit charges & user fees to =
= feed green [censored], be they politicians, consultants,
= activists or= regulators. Environmentalism is just a
= despicable evil green= $$$$$$ game without any redeeming
= value, nor any intent = to save anything. This 40 year old
= scam is now threatened = which is why all those leeching
= green turds are whining =

People are so disgusted with green turdism, so much that

=="Environment" was not mentioned at all in Pres. Bush's ==
== 2004 State of the Union, and NEITHER was any mention ==
== of it in the rebuttals by the DEMOCRATS. & now, RALPH ==
== NADER, 2000 Green Party Pres. Candidate has distanced ==
==himself from the green [censored] and runs as an Independent!==

All enviros, activists, enablers, consultants or regulators
may bark in their green misanthropic and anti-patriotic
hatred until they are biliverdin-green all over, but

**** These enviro-creationist quotes will not go away. ****

The enviros should revere these quotes for they are their
gospel. Don't deny them. Be proud of them. They are,
after all, the

Green equivalent of the Red manifesto or [censored]'s
"Mein Kampf".

The enviros green ilk's strenuous and pathetic efforts to
burry them, is reminiscent of the Nazis who claimed not to
have known how evil their leaders and their systems were and
copping the same plea of "just following orders".
Environmentalism is the same ideology. Environmentalism is
just the revived green version of social pathologies like
BROWN with red and green or RED with brown and green tints.

Face the facts green turds, nowadays the enviros do
have problems,
a) because the people caught onto their game of green
turdism, that

= Environmentalism is just a despicable, evil money (green)
= game, = without any redeeming value, nor any intent to
= save anything.This = scam has come to an end. Now, all the
= green [censored] are whining... =

Why should anyone be surprised? The green movement was
always and exclusively a machination and a cover to get
grants, permit charges & user fees for the green [censored], be
they consultants, activists or regulators.

...to boot, the green [censored] are recognized to be so bad
and evil that

== One of the saddest legacy that the green turds
== produced == is the pervasive trickle down effect aka
== OUTSOURCING ==

b) because it was doomed from the outset by top "executive"
advice from its Führers as shown above in "Quotes from
environmental leaders".

Environmental turdism runs across and far, far beyond
political and ideological party lines. The right wing,
conservatives, have an equal if not bigger number of green
turds amongst them, then the lefties do. Turdism/Turdry
begins when principally noble ideas are exploited for
personal gain. The perversion of the noble goals begins as
soon as the old adage to riches is introduced and applied:
********* "Find a need and fill it" ********* Modern,
current turdism is so vile because the [censored], the green
[censored] expanded it successfully into ********* "Create a fear
and feed off it". *********

Remember, you can strike fear into some people for all the
time. you can even strike fear into all people for some
time. But you cannot strike fear into all people for all the
time. -------- Your green [censored] philosophy has failed --------

The green jig is up! Do you green turds know now why?
ahahahahaha........ahahahahanson

Jeff Strickland said:

Fee Demo is an old idea that has been around for years. It
is growing and growing to become an insidious attempt to
place public lands and facilities into the hands of
private enterprise. It comes up, and gets defeated, and
comes up again. Each time it ratchets up the costs that
visitors will be forced to pay.

Fee Demo started out as a pretty simple thing, and it even
made sense. Basically, the forest service has X number of
dollars. 90% of visitors to National Forests visit 10% of
the facilities, and 10% of visitors go the the remaining
90% of the lands. The Forest Service spends its money on
the places where the masses go, and it calls upon the few
that go the other areas to pay a nominal fee for support
services from the Forest Service. Fee Demo says that if
private enterprise comes in and provides additional
facilities that attract visitors, then those visitors
should pay to visit those attractions. It further states
that even if visitors do not visit the facilities of the
private enterprise, they should pay to visit the lands
operated by the Forest Service. If the Forest Service sets
the fee at the proper level, then people will go to the
facilities operated by the private enterprise. Basically,
if you go to the forest to camp, and you have to pay $50
to get into the park, or you can pay $65 to stay at the
resort and use the boat, sleep in a bed, eat indoors,
etc., then why will you pay $50 to be eaten by bugs? You
should be able to be eaten by bugs for free, but if you
visit for free, then you will not visit the resort
operated by private enterprise, and that will erode the
value of hte private enterprise because visitors will be
faced with paying $65 or nothing.

Do you begin to see that Fee Demo is a bad thing? There
are other even more insidious things about Fee Demo, but
they only make the argument against Fee Demo even
stronger. Fee Demo, as it stood as the Wilderness Pass
Program, was a reasonably acceptable program. It has
faults that I am sure Hansen is more than willing to
expound upon, but I am willing to accept that old program
as pretty reasonable. (The Wilderness Pass Program has
failed on a statewide basis for California's State Parks
and Forests, I haven't followed its effectiveness - or
changes - as it applies to the National Parks and
Forests.) If Fee Demo was capped at asking backcountry
visitors to pay a small fee for the extra services they
need relative ot backcountry travel, then I would be OK
with it, and Hansen would not be so mad. But, Fee Demo
will not stay as a small fee to visit backcountry areas,
and it should be stopped. Fee Demo is an insidious seizure
of public lands by private enterprise. Visitors to public
lands will be subjected to the same charges to have a
remote forest experience as the people that go to the
forest resorts. You will pay the same to be eaten by bugs
as you will pay to sleep in a hotel bed and eat in the
cafeteria. You will pay the same to walk along a babbling
creek as you will pay to jetski across the lake.

Fee Demo is a cession of public lands to private
enterprise.

Finally Strickland contributes worthy information.

Greg

"Jeff Strickland" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Fee Demo is an old idea that has been around for years. It
is growing and growing to become an insidious attempt to
place public lands and facilities into the hands of
private enterprise. It comes up, and gets defeated, and
comes up again. Each time it ratchets up the costs that
visitors will be forced to pay.

Fee Demo started out as a pretty simple thing, and it even
made sense. Basically, the forest service has X number of
dollars. 90% of visitors to National Forests visit 10% of
the facilities, and 10% of visitors go the the remaining
90% of the lands. The Forest Service spends its money on
the places where the masses go, and it calls upon the few
that go the other areas to pay a nominal fee for support
services from the Forest Service. Fee Demo says that if
private enterprise comes in and provides additional
facilities that attract visitors, then those visitors
should pay to visit those attractions. It further states
that even if visitors do not visit the facilities of the
private enterprise, they should pay to visit the lands
operated by the Forest Service. If the Forest Service sets
the fee at the proper level, then people will go to the
facilities operated by the private enterprise. Basically,
if you go to the forest to camp, and you have to pay $50
to get into the park, or you can pay $65 to stay at the
resort and use the boat, sleep in a bed, eat indoors,
etc., then why will you pay $50 to be eaten by bugs? You
should be able to be eaten by bugs for free, but if you
visit for free, then you will not visit the resort
operated by private enterprise, and that will erode the
value of hte private enterprise because visitors will be
faced with paying $65 or nothing.

Do you begin to see that Fee Demo is a bad thing? There
are other even more insidious things about Fee Demo, but
they only make the argument against Fee Demo even
stronger. Fee Demo, as it stood as the Wilderness Pass
Program, was a reasonably acceptable program. It has
faults that I am sure Hansen is more than willing to
expound upon, but I am willing to accept that old program
as pretty reasonable. (The Wilderness Pass Program has
failed on a statewide basis for California's State Parks
and Forests, I haven't followed its effectiveness - or
changes - as it applies to the National Parks and
Forests.) If Fee Demo was capped at asking backcountry
visitors to pay a small fee for the extra services they
need relative ot backcountry travel, then I would be OK
with it, and Hansen would not be so mad. But, Fee Demo
will not stay as a small fee to visit backcountry areas,
and it should be stopped. Fee Demo is an insidious seizure
of public lands by private enterprise. Visitors to public
lands will be subjected to the same charges to have a
remote forest experience as the people that go to the
forest resorts. You will pay the same to be eaten by bugs
as you will pay to sleep in a hotel bed and eat in the
cafeteria. You will pay the same to walk along a babbling
creek as you will pay to jetski across the lake. Fee Demo
is a cession of public lands to private enterprise.

[hanson] EXCELLENT ---- Very well said, Jeff. I don't mind
at all paying for value received. Paying for waddling along
a nature-walk, paying for the use of toilets, paying for
staying in a camp ground or paying for parking on a
trailhead lot. That is ok by me. I pay for what I use. No
question. No arguments.

But, -- if the trailhead parking is road-side, a highway
location for which I have already paid for with my gas
taxes, -- or if the trails are/were constructed and
maintained with (my) volunteer and child labor, -- or if I
walk/hike cross-country outside Nat. Parks in an unimproved
wilderness in a National Forest ---- then give me one good
reason -- why I have to pay gastaxes a second time, -- why I
should pay them for the work I did on the trails, -- why I
should pay them for visiting public lands that belong to me,
John Q. Public. Why should I pay for the fat salaries and
fatter pensions of public servants who are providing no
services for/to me and whose

turdism of the first kind --- [censored] like this is what turns
people off and away from environmentalism. hanson

PS:There is another sour base issue: Basically, the problem
arouse when congress (under Clinton, for the political
fanatics and hacks who see everything as LEFT/RIGHT
issues) withheld/cut funding for USFS, allegedly because
this agency was so inefficient & corrupt. IIRC some $25
million ** were withheld. So, USFS then came up with the
idea: "Hey, we have something to sell here: Recreation on
public lands".... Quickly Disneyland and other folksy
Foodstand vendors were contacted about this. The
commercial sector said in essence: If we can charge an
entrance fee then we will invest, run and manage the
(recreation) on public lands. Hence, the Demo Fee was
born in 1996, a demonstration program to see whether the
public liked/accepted the notion to pay when visiting

** = Congress has no compunction at all to spend many times
$ 25 BILLIONS of our tax money to build and maintain
foreign countries on the other side of the globe, but for
some reason it has problems to pay its own USFS civil
servants a many times smaller amount, equal to a miserly
0.1% of this foreign aid...... Real patriots up there in
the congress, huh?

"hanson"> wrote

Quoted message said:

-- why I should pay them for the work I did on the trails,
-- why I should pay them for visiting public lands that
belong to me, John Q. Public.

They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you would
think such a thing.

"hanson" <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

--------------- Demo-Fee update ----------------------
OPPOSE PERMANENT RECREATION FEE BILL HR 3283

From: Scott Silver, Wild Wilderness e-mail:
[email hidden] Internet:
wildwilderness.orgwildwilderness.orgOpen ↗

I know the Fee-Demo Action Alerts have been coming fast
and furiously and here's another.

<snip blather>

Quoted message said:

---------- begin alert --------

May 4, 2004 Fee Demo Action Alert!

FAX or CALL Washington, DC by MAY 15th TO OPPOSE PERMANENT
RECREATION FEE BILL HR 3283

The Department of the Interior and the Forest Service

What a poor start. It really is poor form to cite the DOI
and then not cite the Department of Agriculture, but simply
the "Forest Service">

<Snip cry for help>

Quoted message said:

***SOME KEY POINTS TO HR 3283

(1) permanent recreation fee authority for ALL LANDS
managed by the US Forest Service, National Park
Service, BLM, US Fish & Wildlife Service and Bureau of
Reclamation;

(2) criminalizes failure to pay the fee with a Class B
misdemeanor, which carries a maximum fine of $5,000
and 6 months in jail;

(3) throws out the constitutional protection of "presumed
innocent until proven guilty"

The presumtion of innocence may be basic to our system of
justice, but it is not codified in the text of the
Constitution.

- public lands users must prove their own innocence and

Quoted message said:

owners of cars loaned out for a trip to your local public
lands will be charged with a criminal offense, along with
the driver;

The sky is falling!!!!!!!

Quoted message said:

(4) repeals the "golden" series of senior passes, allowing
the cost of such passes to jump up in cost;

So does it repeal it or does it raise its cost? How about
a citation?

<snip>

Quoted message said:

***SAMPLE LETTER (please vary and add your own comments.
Brief is OK, but using your own words will carry much more
weight than a duplicate of this sample letter.)

Congressman George Radanovich, Chair, House National
Parks, Recreation & Public Lands subcommittee, 1333
Longworth, Washington DC 20515

Dear Congressman Radanovich,

I am strongly opposed to HR 3283. Recreation fees must not
be made permanent, except for National Parks.

And National Park property that currently admin'd under the
USFS or BLM?

Quoted message said:

Failure to pay a recreation fee must not be made
punishable by 6 months in jail and a $5,000 fine.

A year in jail would be good ... and say 10,000 ... is that
more to the point?

Quoted message said:

A 2003 report by the General Accounting Office found that
Forest Service Fee Demo used $10 million of appropriated
tax dollars to subsidize the program. This makes the cost
of collection and administration about 50%. Fee Demo isn't
worth it in any of the other agencies.

A citation would be nice.

Why would anyone copy and paste a letter that would make
them appear to be such an idiot?

R

hanson said:

[hanson] EXCELLENT ---- Very well said, Jeff. I don't mind
at all paying for value received. Paying for waddling
along a nature-walk, paying for the use of toilets, paying
for staying in a camp ground or paying for parking on a
trailhead lot. That is ok by me. I pay for what I use. No
question. No arguments.

But, -- if the trailhead parking is road-side, a highway
location for which I have already paid for with my gas
taxes, -- or if the trails are/were constructed and
maintained with (my) volunteer and child labor, -- or if I
walk/hike cross-country outside Nat. Parks in an
unimproved wilderness in a National Forest ---- then give
me one good reason -- why I have to pay gastaxes a second
time, -- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public lands
that belong to me, John Q. Public.

Even more well said stuff. I never buy the demo pass and I
send all my NONs to my congressman. What galls me the most
is that they want me to pay money in order to park on the
shoulder of a non-Federal road so I can recreate in an area
that has not been improved by any goverment agency and
probably never will.

Greg

Don said:

"hanson"> wrote

Quoted message said:

-- why I should pay them for the work I did on the trails,
-- why I should pay them for visiting public lands that
belong to me, John Q. Public.

They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you would
think such a thing.

They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part of
that everyone.

Greg

G.T. said:

Don said:

"hanson"> wrote

Quoted message said:

-- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public
lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.

They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you would
think such a thing.

They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part of
that everyone.

Roads "belong to everyone" but you still have to pay gas
taxes and tolls. Same with recreation areas. TANSTAFFL.

--
Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but
pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but
vandals...

Pat O'Connell said:

G.T. said:

Don said:

"hanson"> wrote

> -- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
> trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public
> lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.

They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you would
think such a thing.

They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part of
that everyone.

Roads "belong to everyone" but you still have to pay gas
taxes and tolls. Same with recreation areas.

Recreation areas that have zero government funded
improvements? Right.

Greg

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat O'Connell said:

G.T. said:

Don wrote:
> "hanson"> wrote
>> -- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
>> trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public
>> lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.
>

[Don]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you
> would think such a thing.

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part
of that everyone. Greg

[Pat]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Roads "belong to everyone" but you still have to pay gas
taxes and tolls. Same with recreation areas.

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

Recreation areas that have zero government funded
improvements? Right. Greg

[hanson] ahahahaha......ahahahaha....Greg, listen, Don is a
mental giant who doesn't know John Q. Public, and Pat is or
is acting like a government employee who is afraid for his
pension if the Demo-Fee dies....ahahaha.. Let'em sing,
Greg,.....all of'em!......it's a beautiful choir!.......
.........ahahahaha..........ahahaha......ahahahahahanson

hanson said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

Pat O'Connell said:

G.T. wrote:
> Don wrote:
>> "hanson"> wrote
>>> -- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
>>> trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public
>>> lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.
>>

[Don]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

>> They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you
>> would think such a thing.
>

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

> They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part
> of that everyone. Greg

[Pat]

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

Roads "belong to everyone" but you still have to pay
gas taxes and tolls. Same with recreation areas.

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

Recreation areas that have zero government funded
improvements? Right. Greg

[hanson] ahahahaha......ahahahaha....Greg, listen, Don is
a mental giant who doesn't know John Q. Public, and Pat is
or is acting like a government employee who is afraid for
his pension if the Demo-Fee dies.

No, I'm just not a cheapskate.

--
Pat O'Connell [note munged EMail address] Take nothing but
pictures, Leave nothing but footprints, Kill nothing but
vandals...

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

hanson said:

[hanson] EXCELLENT ---- Very well said, Jeff. I don't
mind at all paying for value received. Paying for
waddling along a nature-walk, paying for the use of
toilets, paying for staying in a camp ground or paying
for parking on a trailhead lot. That is ok by me. I pay
for what I use. No question. No arguments.

But, -- if the trailhead parking is road-side, a highway
location for which I have already paid for with my gas
taxes, -- or if the trails are/were constructed and
maintained with (my) volunteer and child labor, -- or if
I walk/hike cross-country outside Nat. Parks in an
unimproved wilderness in a National Forest ---- then
give me one good reason -- why I have to pay gastaxes a
second time, -- why I should pay them for the work I did
on the trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting
public lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.

Even more well said stuff. I never buy the demo pass and I
send all my NONs to my congressman. What galls me the most
is that they want me to pay money in order to park on the
shoulder of a non-Federal road so I can recreate in an
area that has not been improved by any goverment agency
and probably never will.

Greg

Who provides the L.E.'s, Dirt Darts, Ground Pounders,
controlled burns, timber surveys etc.? Someitmes the biggest
improvements are things that help an area remain the same.

R

"Pat O'Connell" <[email hidden]> wrote in
news:5mrmc.64402$Qy.33433@fed1read04...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

"G.T." wrote

Quoted message said:

Pat O'Connell wrote:
> G.T. wrote:
>> Don wrote:
>>> "hanson"> wrote
>>>> -- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
>>>> trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting
>>>> public lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.
>>>

[Don]

Quoted message said:

>>> They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you
>>> would think such a thing.
>>

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

>> They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a
>> part of that everyone. Greg
>

[Pat]

Quoted message said:

> Roads "belong to everyone" but you still have to pay
> gas taxes and tolls. Same with recreation areas.

[Greg]

Quoted message said:

Recreation areas that have zero government funded
improvements? Right. Greg

[hanson] ahahahaha......ahahahaha....Greg, listen, Don
is a mental giant who doesn't know John Q. Public, and
Pat is or is acting like a government employee who is
afraid for his pension if the Demo-Fee dies. Let'em
sing, Greg,.....all of'em!......it's a beautiful
choir!.......>

[Pat O'Connell]

Quoted message said:

No, I'm just not a cheapskate.

[hanson] O'Connell....not a
cheapskate?......AHAHahahaha....ahahahaha... Not
bad.......Not bad, Pat........ So, much for stereotyping,
huh. Have a great day, dude, and throw your cash around,
like..... "A million here and a million there....and pretty
soon you're talking about some real serious money"
(attributed to Sen. Dirkson) ahahahaha......ahahahanson

"Recto Diver" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
"]news:[email hidden]...

Quoted message said:

"G.T." <[email hidden]> wrote in message

news:<[email hidden]>...

Quoted message said:

Quoted message said:

hanson said:

[hanson] EXCELLENT ---- Very well said, Jeff. I don't
mind at all paying for value received. Paying for
waddling along a nature-walk, paying for the use of
toilets, paying for staying in a camp ground or paying
for parking on a trailhead lot. That is ok by me. I
pay for what I use. No question. No arguments. But, --
if the trailhead parking is road-side, a highway
location for which I have already paid for with my gas
taxes, -- or if the trails are/were constructed and
maintained with (my) volunteer and child labor, -- or
if I walk/hike cross-country outside Nat. Parks in an
unimproved wilderness in a National Forest ---- then
give me one good reason -- why I have to pay gastaxes
a second time, -- why I should pay them for the work I
did on the trails, -- why I should pay them for
visiting public lands that belong to me, John Q.
Public.

Greg Even more well said stuff. I never buy the demo
pass and I send all my NONs to my congressman. What
galls me the most is that they want me to pay money in
order to park on the shoulder of a non-Federal road so I
can recreate in an area that has not been improved by
any goverment agency and probably never will.

[Recto Diver]

Quoted message said:

Who provides the L.E.'s, Dirt Darts, Ground Pounders,
controlled burns, timber surveys etc.? Someitmes the
biggest improvements are things that help an area remain
the same. R

[hanson] .....ahahaha. You have really no idea what is being
discussed here. You should switch from being a Recto Diver
to becoming a Muff Diver. You'd be talking less
[censored]........hahahahaha..... But, let'em sing!.....All
of'em.....It's a beautiful choir! ahahaha......ahahahanson

"G.T."> wrote

Quoted message said:

Don said:

"hanson"> wrote

Quoted message said:

-- why I should pay them for the work I did on the
trails, -- why I should pay them for visiting public
lands that belong to me, John Q. Public.

They don't belong to you, and I don't know why you would
think such a

thing.

Quoted message said:

They belong to everyone and I believe hanson is a part of
that everyone.

If it *belongs* to you, why do you pay a fee to use it?