Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > More bad news from the shrub administration
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Smokey
Member
Member


Joined: 10 Nov 2002
Posts: 792 | TRs | Pics
Smokey
Member
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 10:41 am 
Personally, I feel like I'm under attack from my own government. Although I never trust the media to get it right, if any of this story is true, the Bush administration has lobbed another shell my way. I've seen speculation that the $30/year trail fee I have dutifully been paying, is really the brainchild of the recreation industry (read off road vehicle manufacturers) and the forestry service. If this comes to pass, I will see I indeed have been had. http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/102348_roads01.shtml Gary

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 12:29 pm 
I'm not suprised. This administration has proven itself to support the exact opposite of everything I believe.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 12:58 pm 
You guys need to learn to give alittle! The offroad and recreational industry has been under assaoult for 20+ years. it's about utime they won ONE of these battle. Other people interests and passions DO HAVE MERRIT too you know! Open your minds, there is enough to go around! I happen to have a passion for both worlds. I see and am active in both the offroad industry and the backpacking industry. They can coexist.

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:07 pm 
I see no reason for any industry whatsoever to build roads in the middle of NCNP, for example, particularly from a 150 year old outdated law. It's just yet another means for the administration to hand a gift to a destructive industry, presumably with the expectation of a return payment during election time. Once the inevitable Iraq war starts up, expect a lot more of this kind of thing. The announcement being on Christmas Eve was no coincidence. This administration thrives on slipping things under the radar to avoid public discourse. With the general public sufficiently distracted by a wagging dog and a Republican Congress without the guts to support their own principles under his belt, there's no limit to the damage Bush can do, all virtually unheard and unseen.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:14 pm 
The article is so full of claims and smoke I can't really tell what the proposed change actually is. Is it movement of rulemaking into an administrative act, or something else? Where are the *specifics*? I have a real hard time believing it just automatically OK's turning any old route into a road (even if it *is* already a road wink.gif ). Other than that, if it lends aid to maintaining other forms of access in the face of the enviro onslaught of closing off access to motorized use, it's about time for some balance. I can't believe anyone would support reopening unused routes into wilderness areas, I for one would oppose that, but it's certainly the idea it appears this article is intended to give the impression of. In light of the lack of specifics from this nebulous article, in fact, it appears to me this guy is claiming that a lack of power or increased difficulty in closing *existing* and used routes, is somehow an increase in the number of routes. IMO, according to this article anyway, that remains to be seen.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Sore Feet
Member
Member


Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 6304 | TRs | Pics
Location: Out There, Somewhere
Sore Feet
Member
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:15 pm 
There's a difference between the two groups coexisting, and big business-friendly government opening up wilderness areas and undeveloped areas of National Parks to vehicle access. There are already miles and miles of "roads" out there that can be used for off-road, there is no point in allowing new stuff to be constructed in land that has been set aside for the specific purpose of limiting the human impact on it.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:24 pm 
Settle down Sore Feet. Once again leave it to Mr. Goat to throw some *rationality* into the topic! I sway my point to your eloquence Mr. Goat. There is no way roads are magically going to be built into NP's OR wilderness areas. I wouldnt support that either! Mr. Goat is correct inthat it's about bloody time some balance is shown, and the enviros gave alittle ground! Do you know how many farmers and land owners have lost EVERYTHING because some enviro terrorist has claimed that a shrew or some other animal is endangered and happens to MAYBE exsist on the preoperty. This goes so much farther than ORV's. It's time PROPERTY rights meant something again! Besides, there IS room in this world for ORV's. TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MtnGoat
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 11992 | TRs | Pics
Location: Lyle, WA
MtnGoat
Member
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:32 pm 
I understand your concern SF, and as I've stated I would also oppose *new* routes, but I don't see any evidence as yet that new routes are being contemplated. The article just isn't specific enough to make that determination yet IMO. Not closing *existing* access, or roads, is not new roads.

Diplomacy is the art of saying 'Nice doggie' until you can find a rock. - Will Rogers
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:43 pm 
I agree that there is a difference between opening new roads and closing existing roads. I oppose it as well, but it's not relevent here as the article never talks about it. It's opening new roads in protected areas for the explicit use of ORVs, from what I understand. I have nothing against ORVing as long as it's not destroying protected land. I hope it is indeed a nebulous article. As for property rights, that's a whole new topic.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 1:52 pm 
There is no point going into typical "I hate the administration" speech because of one incomplete article! And Mac, I beg to differ with you. Property rights is what this is all about! We (the people) own this land. Weather its your very own 5 acres that the feds are telling you you CANT build on because of ten square feet of swamp, or the national forests being gated to keep out motorcycles and quads! It's time property rights meant something again. There is room for all of our interests in this great nation. Nobody is talking about opening up national parks to ORV's! TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 3:25 pm 
Backpacker Joe wrote:
There is no point going into typical "I hate the administration" speech because of one incomplete article!
It's not just because of this article. I am against a vast majority of the decisions and policies made by this administration since it took power 2 years ago, on everything from environmental protection, civil liberties, foreign aggression and the economy. This is just a very small tip of the iceberg.
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Property rights is what this is all about! We (the people) own this land. Weather its your very own 5 acres that the feds are telling you you CANT build on because of ten square feet of swamp, or the national forests being gated to keep out motorcycles and quads!
I see a very big difference between public and private land. But again, I'm not prepared to go off on this topic. I haven't done enough research on this and can thus only go by what "feels" right, which isn't very solid footing. My base feelings are that public land's basic premise should be protection and private land's use should be for whatever the owner wants -- with some exceptions to both. But I'm not prepared to go beyond that at this point.
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Nobody is talking about opening up national parks to ORV's!
That is exactly what this article is talking about.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 1696 | TRs | Pics
Location: Silverdale, WA
Brian Curtis
Trail Blazer/HiLaker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 3:39 pm 
that elitist from silverdale wanted to tell me that all carnes are bad--Studebaker Hoch
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 3:49 pm 
Mac come on, do you really believe that any National Park will ever be opened up to that kind fo thing? Let's not loose our heads here. I dont care what that article says, that's not going to happen. Not even the ORV'ers would want that. And please dont start badgering me about snow machines in yellowstone. The snow melts and there is no visible effect. And also, dont start on the two stroke engine bit either. THere are plenty of four stroke snow machines around. TB

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
MCaver
Founder



Joined: 14 Dec 2001
Posts: 5124 | TRs | Pics
MCaver
Founder
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 6:32 pm 
Backpacker Joe wrote:
Mac come on, do you really believe that any National Park will ever be opened up to that kind fo thing? Let's not loose our heads here. I dont care what that article says, that's not going to happen. Not even the ORV'ers would want that.
I am honestly so cynical about the current political climate that I would not put anything at all past our current lawmakers. The upper cabinet levels have been stacked with former industry lobbyists and the administration has repeatedly shown itself to be pro-industry and anti-conservation to the point of completely excluding conservationists from dicsussion in some cases, as well as taking every effort to remove public and/or judicial review. This administration has the attitude that they will do whatever the hell they want and there's nothing anyone can do about it, if they even know about it.
Backpacker Joe wrote:
And please dont start badgering me about snow machines in yellowstone. The snow melts and there is no visible effect. And also, dont start on the two stroke engine bit either. THere are plenty of four stroke snow machines around.
You brought that up, not I. But for the record, I am not against snowmobiles in Yellowstone as long as they meet noise and pollution standards necessary to protect wildlife and vegetation. When rangers working the gates start getting sick from the fumes, there is something wrong.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker



Joined: 16 Dec 2001
Posts: 23956 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cle Elum
Backpacker Joe
Blind Hiker
PostWed Jan 01, 2003 6:37 pm 
Well I can relate in one way. I had the same (read more) cynisism regarding our last White House occupant! I'll give this one the time to screw up like time showed us that last one did! We'll see I guess. I think more good will come from the admisistration than bad. That said, neither party is *constitutional* enough for me! They're both socialist in nature, one just less so than the other!

"If destruction be our lot we must ourselves be its author and finisher. As a nation of freemen we must live through all time or die by suicide." — Abraham Lincoln
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > More bad news from the shrub administration
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum