The Bush to call cow tracks & Jeep trails: Highways ??

[Doug Bashford]

In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans)
said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as wilderness, and
that the current
4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their
home states.

http://www.zogby.com/soundbites/ReadClips.dbm?ID=5343

Daily Camera, Boulder CO, June 3,

on building roads in national parks and wilderness areas:

When is a cow track or foot path a ''highway''?

When Bush's U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale **Norton**, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and Executive
Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Greg *Walcher* - plus other like-minded
Western officials - say it is.

Trying to fly under the radar, the Bush administration has translated its antipathy for the
environment into a series of rule changes that could permanently alter the nation's natural
heritage. One of the most odious of these dusts off an obscure 1866 mining law, RS2477. Originally
intended to allow the building of highways across public lands that were not already set aside for
other uses - such as protection of watersheds, forests, wildlife habitat, or even scenery - the
archaic law was repealed by Congress in 1976.

But on Jan. 6, *Norton* dove through a musty loophole in RS2477, ''disclaiming'' interest in
federal lands - even National Parks and Wilderness Areas - and encouraging states and local
governments to make their own right-of-way claims on ''highways.'' But under RS2477, a highway can
be a cattle trail. The key is that it must have been considered a ''road'' at some point in the
foggy past.

Recently, the state of Utah reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the *federal
government,* allowing counties to designate such ''highways.'' Utah counties already are laying
claim to every bit of right-of-way they can find, so they will have wide latitude to manage these
''highways,'' potentially bulldozing and paving a craggy Jeep trail, even one that crosses public
lands where vehicles now are banned.

The Utah MOU is so bad that the Boulder-based Outdoor Industry Association has threatened to move
its semi-annual conventions out of the Beehive State. But after a May 15 letter to *Norton* from
*Walcher* - at the behest of Owens - Colorado won't be on OIA's short-list of new locations.
Walcher actually finds the Utah MOU too restrictive. Here's a sampling of what Colorado wants:

''The Utah MOU does not acknowledge the existence of ... rights-of-way unless the road is capable
of accommodating four-wheel-drive vehicles.'' The state wants to be able to bulldoze real roads
even where vehicles cannot now pass.

''The Utah MOU does not provide for ... right-of-way to be acknowledged within a Wilderness Study
Area, on National Park Service lands, or within a National Wildlife Refuge.'' Hey, let's grade a
new road up Longs Peak! (Moffatt County, Colo. already is claiming rights-of-way on 240 miles of
''highway'' in Dinosaur National Monument, and another 50 miles in the Brown's Park National
Wildlife Refuge, which was paid for by taxpayers to protect migratory birds.)

And, ever chintzy, Colorado thinks the feds should pay for ''all processing and administrative
costs'' in determining ''candidate roads.''

What a difference an election can make. Under Bill Clinton, and supported by millions of public
comments, the federal government nearly implemented ''roadless rules'' to protect thousands of
acres of wildlands. Under Bush, the extractive industries, off-road-vehicle enthusiasts and people
who want ''drive-up'' wilderness - just like Burger King! - rule the day.

Never mind that most Americans think there's not enough true wilderness. In a January poll
conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans) said they
believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as wilderness, and that the
current 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their
home states.

Oh, that's right: The White House doesn't care about polls. Its righteous certainty grows like
mushrooms from the rank fertilizer of inflexible ideology. And Owens & Co. obviously are giddy
with the stink.

(4/1/1)
- The Casper-Star Tribune

BACK TO ZOGBY SOUND CLIPS
=============

 

[Wbl]

[email protected] (Doug Bashford) wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...

<drivel snipped>

Yo, troll, you've got a government funded job, don't you?

 

[Vlj]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> sez:

> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
> wilderness, and that the current
> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
> states.
<snip>

Until they find out what "Wilderness" really means.

> Daily Camera, Boulder CO, June 3,

Fukin' socialist rag from the People's Republik of Boulder.

> on building roads in national parks and wilderness areas:
>
> When is a cow track or foot path a ''highway''?

Well, let's see. Revise Statute 2477 preceeded the invention of the automobile by some 40 years.
What do you think the definition of *highway* was 40 years before the existence of the first
automobile, eh? Most likely footpaths, cowpaths, horsepaths and wagon paths because that's all there
was 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile.

> When Bush's U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale **Norton**, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and
> Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Greg *Walcher* - plus other
> like-minded Western officials - say it is.
>
> Trying to fly under the radar, the Bush administration has translated its antipathy for the
> environment into a series of rule changes that could permanently alter the nation's natural
> heritage. One of the most odious of these dusts off an obscure 1866 mining law, RS2477.
> Originally intended to allow the building of highways across public lands that were not already
> set aside for other uses - such as protection of watersheds, forests, wildlife habitat, or even
> scenery - the archaic law was repealed by Congress in 1976.

You conveniently left out the fact that any existing RS 2477 claims were grandfathered at the time
of that repeal and the gov is just now getting around to processing those claims. Plus, those claims
are a Property Right and not tied to the physical condition of the route on the ground. If you have
an easement property right, you have that easement whetheir it be well-trodden or grass covered.

> But on Jan. 6, *Norton* dove through a musty loophole in RS2477, ''disclaiming'' interest in
> federal lands - even National Parks and Wilderness Areas - and encouraging states and local
> governments to make their own right-of-way claims on ''highways.'' But under RS2477, a highway
> can be a cattle trail. The key is that it must have been considered a ''road'' at some point in
> the foggy past.

Yeah, like 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile up to 1975 when the act was
repealed - whether you or the People's Republik of Boulder Daily Camera likes it or not.

> Recently, the state of Utah reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the *federal
> government,* allowing counties to designate such ''highways.'' Utah counties already are laying
> claim to every bit of right-of-way they can find, so they will have wide latitude to manage
> these ''highways,'' potentially bulldozing and paving a craggy Jeep trail, even one that crosses
> public lands where vehicles now are banned.

Well, we're making progress now. At least the feds and the state are coming to some understanding
*before* things are nailed down unlike some past presidential proclamations that affected large
areas of the state being gelled in secret and inked in an adjoining state when the putz didn't even
have the balls to cross the state line to do the deed.

> The Utah MOU is so bad that the Boulder-based Outdoor Industry Association has threatened to
> move its semi-annual conventions out of the Beehive State. But after a May 15 letter to *Norton*
> from *Walcher* - at the behest of Owens - Colorado won't be on OIA's short-list of new
> locations.

Exellent!! I don't what those whining fukers in my state either. They can pound sand to some other
percieved eco-socialist paradise.

> Walcher actually finds the Utah MOU too restrictive. Here's a sampling of what Colorado wants:
>
> ''The Utah MOU does not acknowledge the existence of ... rights-of-way unless the road is
> capable of accommodating four-wheel-drive vehicles.'' The state wants to be able to bulldoze
> real roads even where vehicles cannot now pass.

My dirtbike is a "vehicle" and its gotta be pretty damn tight for me not to be able to pass.

> ''The Utah MOU does not provide for ... right-of-way to be acknowledged within a Wilderness
> Study Area, on National Park Service lands, or within a National Wildlife Refuge.'' Hey, let's
> grade a new road up Longs Peak! (Moffatt County, Colo. already is claiming rights-of-way on 240
> miles of ''highway'' in Dinosaur National Monument, and another 50 miles in the Brown's Park
> National Wildlife Refuge, which was paid for by taxpayers to protect migratory birds.)

Well, what came first? The property right or the park. Kinda like the route to Angel's Arch in
Arches National Park that existed *before* the park was created along with promises that the route
would remain open. So much for promises, eh?

> And, ever chintzy, Colorado thinks the feds should pay for ''all processing and administrative
> costs'' in determining ''candidate roads.''

Why not? Aren't they the ones that are putting up the carsonite? Let them cough up the $$$ to put
their money where their carsonite is?

> What a difference an election can make. Under Bill Clinton, and supported by millions of public
> comments, the federal government nearly implemented ''roadless rules'' to protect thousands of
> acres of wildlands.

Sierra Klub mass mailing postcards -- hardly and honest assesment of public opinion. If you want the
true pulse, take a survey at the trailhead to filter out the urban archair environmentalist.

> Under Bush, the extractive industries, off-road-vehicle enthusiasts and people who want
> ''drive-up'' wilderness - just like Burger King! - rule the day.

Payback is a *****, ain't it?

> Never mind that most Americans think there's not enough true wilderness. In a January poll
> conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans) said they
> believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as wilderness, and that
> the current 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in
> their home states.

Up to the point that you point out that you gotta hike in 12 miles to that favorite fishing spot or
hire a pack team to haul out that elk you just shot 9 miles from the truck. Then, they don't think
so much of "Wilderness."

> Oh, that's right: The White House doesn't care about polls. Its righteous certainty grows like
> mushrooms from the rank fertilizer of inflexible ideology. And Owens & Co. obviously are giddy
> with the stink.

Fukin' whiners.

Good ridin' to ya, VLJ
--
Take only pictures, leave only bullet holes.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
> wilderness, and that the current
> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
> states.

Polls can lie and liars can Poll.....Of course asking a question this way would evoke a positive
respond from most people, who care about the environment.

To Poll without a preconceived agenda, would require questions that also fairly represent the per
capita cost in converting productive national public lands into Wilderness waste lands.

..........Wilderness Areas are public tax dollar supported animal welfare states.........

Put the fuzzy freeloading 'Survival of the Fittest' losers in zoos.

Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return Wilderness Areas to a productive
source of a natural resource based public wealth.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news[email protected]...
> "Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >
> > In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> > Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
> > wilderness, and that the current
> > 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
> > states.
>
> Polls can lie and liars can Poll.....Of course asking a question this way would evoke a positive
> respond from most people, who care about the environment.
>
> To Poll without a preconceived agenda, would require questions that also fairly represent the per
> capita cost in converting productive national public lands into Wilderness waste lands.

Ah. Yes. A perfect example of REALLY biased polling. "productive national public lands" vs
"wilderness". We can see that you are the liar who can poll.

>
> ..........Wilderness Areas are public tax dollar supported animal welfare states.........
>
> Put the fuzzy freeloading 'Survival of the Fittest' losers in zoos.
>
> Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return Wilderness Areas to a productive
> source of a natural resource based public wealth.

What 'public wealth' are you referring to? The only way that the land 'produces public wealth' is as
national winderness areas. As 'natural resource sources' they produce private profits for their
destruction.

 

[Peter]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
> wilderness, and that the current
> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
> states.
>

<snip>

In another poll 86.2% of people questioned believed that 75.98% of statistics are made up.

Peter.

 

[Matt]

"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>
> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
> wilderness, and that the current
> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
> states.

oh, please. we all know that the definition of 'wilderness' that the vast majority of people being
polled had in mind was "not covered with skyscrapers or track homes" rather than the
can-only-be-seen-with-binoculars your ilk pushes for. Tell the pollees that you mean Wilderness
(with a capital
W) where you can't even ride a freakin' mountain bike and that 65% might just drop a little.

--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>, "vlj" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> sez:
>
>> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
>> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
>> wilderness, and that the current
>> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
>> states.
><snip>
>
>Until they find out what "Wilderness" really means.
>
>> Daily Camera, Boulder CO, June 3,
>
>Fukin' socialist rag from the People's Republik of Boulder.
>
>> on building roads in national parks and wilderness areas:
>>
>> When is a cow track or foot path a ''highway''?
>
>Well, let's see. Revise Statute 2477 preceeded the invention of the automobile by some 40 years.
>What do you think the definition of *highway* was 40 years before the existence of the first
>automobile, eh? Most likely footpaths, cowpaths, horsepaths and wagon paths because that's all
>there was 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile.

The definition wasn't an overgrown trail not used for 50 years.

>
>> When Bush's U.S. Secretary of the Interior Gale **Norton**, Colorado Gov. Bill Owens and
>> Executive Director of the Colorado Department of Natural Resources Greg *Walcher* - plus other
>> like-minded Western officials - say it is.
>>
>> Trying to fly under the radar, the Bush administration has translated its antipathy for the
>> environment into a series of rule changes that could permanently alter the nation's natural
>> heritage. One of the most odious of these dusts off an obscure 1866 mining law, RS2477.
>> Originally intended to allow the building of highways across public lands that were not already
>> set aside for other uses - such as protection of watersheds, forests, wildlife habitat, or even
>> scenery - the archaic law was repealed by Congress in 1976.
>
>You conveniently left out the fact that any existing RS 2477 claims were grandfathered at the time
>of that repeal and the gov is just now getting around to processing those claims.

Most of them are just being made, by right-wing states who do not like the idea of a federal
government protecting the environment.

> Plus, those claims are a Property Right

Bull.

>and not tied to the physical condition of the route on the ground. If you have an easement property
>right, you have that easement whetheir it be well-trodden or grass covered.
>
>> But on Jan. 6, *Norton* dove through a musty loophole in RS2477, ''disclaiming'' interest in
>> federal lands - even National Parks and Wilderness Areas - and encouraging states and local
>> governments to make their own right-of-way claims on ''highways.'' But under RS2477, a highway
>> can be a cattle trail. The key is that it must have been considered a ''road'' at some point in
>> the foggy past.
>
>Yeah, like 40 years before the invention of the fukin' automobile up to 1975 when the act was
>repealed - whether you or the People's Republik of Boulder Daily Camera likes it or not.

So how are things in the Fatherland there? Need the wilderness for lebensraum, do you?

>
>> Recently, the state of Utah reached a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with the *federal
>> government,* allowing counties to designate such ''highways.'' Utah counties already are laying
>> claim to every bit of right-of-way they can find, so they will have wide latitude to manage
>> these ''highways,'' potentially bulldozing and paving a craggy Jeep trail, even one that
>> crosses public lands where vehicles now are banned.
>
>Well, we're making progress now. At least the feds and the state are coming to some understanding
>*before* things are nailed down unlike some past presidential proclamations that affected large
>areas of the state being gelled in secret and inked in an adjoining state when the putz didn't even
>have the balls to cross the state line to do the deed.
>
>> The Utah MOU is so bad that the Boulder-based Outdoor Industry Association has threatened to
>> move its semi-annual conventions out of the Beehive State. But after a May 15 letter to
>> *Norton* from *Walcher* - at the behest of Owens - Colorado won't be on OIA's short-list of new
>> locations.
>
>Exellent!! I don't what those whining fukers in my state either. They can pound sand to some other
>percieved eco-socialist paradise.

Just Czechoslovakia enough for you (for now)?

>
>> Walcher actually finds the Utah MOU too restrictive. Here's a sampling of what Colorado wants:
>>
>> ''The Utah MOU does not acknowledge the existence of ... rights-of-way unless the road is
>> capable of accommodating four-wheel-drive vehicles.'' The state wants to be able to bulldoze
>> real roads even where vehicles cannot now pass.
>
>My dirtbike is a "vehicle" and its gotta be pretty damn tight for me not to be able to pass.
>
>> ''The Utah MOU does not provide for ... right-of-way to be acknowledged within a Wilderness
>> Study Area, on National Park Service lands, or within a National Wildlife Refuge.'' Hey, let's
>> grade a new road up Longs Peak! (Moffatt County, Colo. already is claiming rights-of-way on 240
>> miles of ''highway'' in Dinosaur National Monument, and another 50 miles in the Brown's Park
>> National Wildlife Refuge, which was paid for by taxpayers to protect migratory birds.)
>
>Well, what came first? The property right or the park. Kinda like the route to Angel's Arch in
>Arches National Park that existed *before* the park was created along with promises that the route
>would remain open. So much for promises, eh?
>
>> And, ever chintzy, Colorado thinks the feds should pay for ''all processing and administrative
>> costs'' in determining ''candidate roads.''
>
>Why not? Aren't they the ones that are putting up the carsonite? Let them cough up the $$$ to put
>their money where their carsonite is?
>
>> What a difference an election can make. Under Bill Clinton, and supported by millions of public
>> comments, the federal government nearly implemented ''roadless rules'' to protect thousands of
>> acres of wildlands.
>
>Sierra Klub mass mailing postcards -- hardly and honest assesment of public opinion. If you want
>the true pulse, take a survey at the trailhead to filter out the urban archair environmentalist.

So only people despoiling the environment get a say?

>
>> Under Bush, the extractive industries, off-road-vehicle enthusiasts and people who want
>> ''drive-up'' wilderness - just like Burger King! - rule the day.
>
>Payback is a *****, ain't it?
>
>> Never mind that most Americans think there's not enough true wilderness. In a January poll
>> conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans) said they
>> believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as wilderness, and that
>> the current 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness
>> in their home states.
>
>Up to the point that you point out that you gotta hike in 12 miles to that favorite fishing spot or
>hire a pack team to haul out that elk you just shot 9 miles from the truck. Then, they don't think
>so much of "Wilderness."
>
>> Oh, that's right: The White House doesn't care about polls. Its righteous certainty grows like
>> mushrooms from the rank fertilizer of inflexible ideology. And Owens & Co. obviously are giddy
>> with the stink.
>
>Fukin' whiners.
>
>Good ridin' to ya, VLJ

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>, "Brian McGarry"
<[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
>> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
>> wilderness, and that the current
>> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
>> states.
>
>Polls can lie and liars can Poll.....Of course asking a question this way would evoke a positive
>respond from most people, who care about the environment.
>
>To Poll without a preconceived agenda, would require questions that also fairly represent the per
>capita cost in converting productive national public lands into Wilderness waste lands.
>

The wildnerness is already there.

>...........Wilderness Areas are public tax dollar supported animal welfare states.........
>
>Put the fuzzy freeloading 'Survival of the Fittest' losers in zoos.
>
>Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return Wilderness Areas to a productive
>source of a natural resource based public wealth.
>
>

The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and pillage
it.

 

[Lloyd Parker]

In article <[email protected]>, "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:
>"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
>>
>> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
>> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved as
>> wilderness, and that the current
>> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their home
>> states.
>
>
>oh, please. we all know that the definition of 'wilderness' that the vast majority of people being
>polled had in mind was "not covered with skyscrapers or track homes" rather than the
>can-only-be-seen-with-binoculars your ilk pushes for. Tell the pollees that you mean Wilderness
>(with a capital
>W) where you can't even ride a freakin' mountain bike and that 65% might just drop a little.
>
I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved intact, not raped
and pillaged.

 

[Doug Bashford]

In <[email protected]> On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 05:05:10 GMT, "vlj"
<[email protected]> wrote
>- "Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> sez:
>-
>- > In a January poll conducted by Zogby International,
>- > 71 percent (including 51 percent of Republicans) said
>- > they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands
>- > should be preserved as wilderness, and that the current
>- > 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of
>- > Americans support more wilderness in their home states.
<snip>

>- > Walcher actually finds the Utah MOU too restrictive.
>- > Here's a
>- > sampling of what Colorado wants:
>- >
>- > ''The Utah MOU does not acknowledge the existence of ...
>- > rights-of-way unless the road is capable of accommodating
>- > four-wheel-drive vehicles.'' The state wants to be able to bulldoze
>- > real
>- > roads even where vehicles cannot now pass.
>-
>- My dirtbike is a "vehicle" and its gotta be pretty damn tight
>- for me not to be able to pass.

Not to worry, no need to slow down, your boys will have all those nasty trails pushing station
wagons in no time! Gawd how they hate difficult natureness! Vote Republican! Pave it over, and put
handrails on what's left! Yeah Baby! --Doug

When does being the most "educated," mean being the most wrong? Like: Among Republicans who said
they follow international affairs very closely -- the largeest percentage -- 55% -- said WMD have
been found, with just 45% saying they have not.

Cognitive disonance. If some True Things make you nervous, you'll never fly.

 

[Michael Rothwel]

Lloyd Parker wrote:

>
> The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and pillage
> it.

That's right, the wilderness belongs to ALL of us. This means that I can ride my motorcycle there,
you can hike there, my neighbor can ride his horse there. What's wrong with you tree huggers is that
you think that if it "belongs to all of us" it really only belongs to the people who use it as YOU
see fit. I believe in conservation, I dont believe in "wilderness" area because that makes it
un-usable to the general public.

--
Michael Rothwell Oracle/Sql Server DBA/Developer/Web Enabled DB's HTTP://www.bdbinc.com/

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On 22 Jul 2003 17:34:21 GMT, [email protected] (Lloyd Parker) wrote:

>I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved intact, not raped and
>pillaged.

By "most", do you mean a "small percentage"? If so, you're right. Otherwise, you';re as full of ****
as any other birdwatcher that wants everyone to recreate as YOU see fit.

Be gone, lowly troll.

 

[Matt]

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> In article <[email protected]>, "Matt" <[email protected]> wrote:
> >"Doug Bashford" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:[email protected]...
> >>
> >> In a January poll conducted by Zogby International, 71 percent (including 51 percent of
> >> Republicans) said they believe that 10 percent or more of all U.S. lands should be preserved
> >> as wilderness, and that the current
> >> 4.7 percent isn't enough. Sixty-five percent of Americans support more wilderness in their
> >> home states.
> >
> >
> >oh, please. we all know that the definition of 'wilderness' that the vast majority of people
> >being polled had in mind was "not covered with skyscrapers or track homes" rather than the
> >can-only-be-seen-with-binoculars your ilk pushes for. Tell the pollees that you mean Wilderness
> >(with a capital
> >W) where you can't even ride a freakin' mountain bike and that 65% might just drop a little.
> >
> I doubt it. Most people view wildnerness as something to be preserved
intact,
> not raped and pillaged.

Spare us the Straw Man arguments. Only a certified eco-whack uses terms like "rape and pillage" to
define an 18" piece of singletrack thru the woods.

--
Matt 02 RM-250 (me) 02 TTR-125L (wife) 03 KTM 65SX (son)

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return
Wilderness
> > Areas to a productive source of a natural resource based public wealth.
>
> What 'public wealth' are you referring to? The only way that the land 'produces public wealth' is
> as national winderness areas. As 'natural resource sources' they produce private profits for their
> destruction.

Public wealth is created by private businesses...JOBS.

Do you really believe than humans can destroy the earth?

I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a bunch of animals that long
ago, out lived their usefulness.

I promote using public lands for the benefit of the public. Not making them into million area de
facto zoos.

 

[Brian McGarry]

"Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>
> The wildnerness is already there.

Right you are Lloyd, the Wilderness Areas are natural resources waiting to be exploited for
our benefit.

Don't worry, it'll take centuries before we log and mine it all.

> The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and
pillage
> it.

Again, do really believe that humans have capabilities to destroy the Earth? If manage our natural
resources poorly, humans suffer the consequences. The Earth will more or less continue, the same
as always.

Neither the Earth or Mankind need Wilderness Areas to survive, but humans do need to exploit the
environment to survive.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> "Ian St. John" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > >
> > > Manage 'all' public lands for the benefit of the public. Return
> Wilderness
> > > Areas to a productive source of a natural resource based public
wealth.
> >
> > What 'public wealth' are you referring to? The only way that the land 'produces public wealth'
> > is as national winderness areas. As 'natural resource sources' they produce private profits for
> > their destruction.
>
> Public wealth is created by private businesses...JOBS.

A false statement. The timber wealth is there inherent in the land. The water, the minerals. It is
the conversion of this public wealth to private hands that you are promoting, not any theoretical
jobs that might be created at your convenience.

>
> Do you really believe than humans can destroy the earth?

Nope. I only believe that they can damage the biosphere. Of course, I have a hard time justifying
the extent of the damage to the biosphere.

> I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a
bunch
> of animals that long ago, out lived their usefulness.

I am not 'useful' to you so I am not worthy of living? Do you have these delusions of being 'master
of the world' often or just when the drugs kick in?

>
> I promote using public lands for the benefit of the public.

Ah. So you promote the preservation of wilderness areas?

> Not making them into million area de facto zoos.

Oops. I guess not. You see the wilderness only as a badly run zoo. I see. You are, perhaps, the most
pathetic excuse for a human being I have ever had the misfortune to 'meet' on usenet.

 

[Scrape At Minds]

On Tue, 22 Jul 2003 15:13:44 -0500, "Brian McGarry"

>I'm not interested in having some pretty surroundings or protecting a bunch of animals that long
>ago, out lived their usefulness.

Correct. Are you better off or worse off since the dinosaurs died out?

Personally, I can't think of a single reason I'd be better off if they were still here. Getting to
work would really suck.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Michael Rothwell" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> Lloyd Parker wrote:
>
> >
> > The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and
pillage
> > it.
>
> That's right, the wilderness belongs to ALL of us. This means that I can
ride
> my motorcycle there, you can hike there, my neighbor can ride his horse
there.

Only if such activity is consistent with preservation of the resource. All of the public has a right
to the land but that does not mean Fred can use his right to that land to start a forest fire even
if he likes fires. The damage must be assessed and limited.

> What's wrong with you tree huggers is that you think that if it "belongs
to all
> of us" it really only belongs to the people who use it as YOU see fit.

I think the term 'you think' is a good indication of the 'red herring' nature of this rant. When
assholes start claiming that 'your think' sonmething it is a good clue to their own lack of thought.
The issue is preservation of the resource, not the usage of it. It does not matter if it is reserved
to foot traffic or made into a ski hill. The degree of preservation of the wilderness is the degree
to which we have 'succeeded' in saving the value of the wilderness as such.

> I believe in conservation, I dont believe in "wilderness" area because that makes it un-usable to
> the general public.

The value of wilderness is not exclusively as the playground of the RVer and FWDer. Their must be
a range of preservation levels including purely 'unspoiled' wilderness that is reserved for the
'self interest' of the flora and fauna, or you have nothing but 'badly run zoos' to paraphrase
another poster.

 

[Ian St. John]

"Brian McGarry" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
>
> "Lloyd Parker" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> >
> > The wildnerness is already there.
>
> Right you are Lloyd, the Wilderness Areas are natural resources waiting to be exploited for our
> benefit.

The 'masters of earth' fallacy.

>
> Don't worry, it'll take centuries before we log and mine it all.

The 'boundless resources' fallacy.

>
>
> > The wildnerness belongs to all of us, not just you who would rape and
> pillage
> > it.
>
> Again, do really believe that humans have capabilities to destroy the
Earth?

Agiain the 'non-sequitor' fallacy.

> If manage our natural resources poorly, humans suffer the consequences.
The
> Earth will more or less continue, the same as always.

Depends on what you mean by 'more or less'. The cockroaches that are the only life to thrive in the
remaining biological scum may thank you but I

>
> Neither the Earth or Mankind need Wilderness Areas to survive, but humans
do
> need to exploit the environment to survive.

We do need wilderness to survive as humans. Only those who have been 'dehumanised' to the degree of
becoming pretty much a 'alw of the jungle' animal do not need nature. You even state that we NEED
the environment while you do it only on the basis of 'exploitation'. Your flaw is your failure to
understand that endless and unlimited exploitation will destroy the environment that we need ( to
make sustainable for the future).