Forum Index > Public Lands Stewardship > New direction and agenda for roadless areas
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
Stefan
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 5084 | TRs | Pics
Stefan
Member
PostTue May 10, 2005 11:05 am 
marylou wrote:
Once it is gone, it's gone.
Goodell creek area looks pretty much what is used to look like. Monte Cristo is getting back to what it used to look like. Will take some more time. But it will get back.

Art is an adventure.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 856 | TRs | Pics
Location: near Snohomish, Wa.
McPilchuck
Wild Bagger
PostTue May 10, 2005 11:51 pm 
Very well said Malachai Constant, very well said...I couldn't have put it better. McPil

in the granite high-wild alpine land . . . www.alpinequest.com
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Natty Bumpo
map fool



Joined: 04 May 2005
Posts: 18 | TRs | Pics
Location: Portland, OR
Natty Bumpo
map fool
PostTue May 10, 2005 11:53 pm 
Tom wrote:
I'm not sure I understand what is necessarily wrong about opening it up to state control? If the goal is preservation, the goal should be to make these areas wilderness, not tie them up via fragile loophole.
These areas won't qualify for Wilderness Act protection if they are roaded. One goal of the Bush plan is to give timber and mining interests access to wilderness-eligible lands so they can build roads (at taxpayer expense) and prevent these areas from qualifying for Wilderness designation in the future. Why isn't it a great idea to give states the final decision on this? As someone mentioned, these are National forest lands, not state lands. We all own them and should get a say in how they're managed. Should the governor of Wyoming get to decide how to dispose of Yellowstone NP?

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 May 11, 2005 7:56 am 
so we all own them but not all of us can use them. that doesn't meet my standards for ownership. it's a nice phrase that is used to imply ownership but doesn't actually mean ownership. those who own buisnesses, those employed by them, and those who use the products generated by them are owners too, but it seems another bunch of owners want *their* ownership to be on a higher level excluding the uses of other owers.

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
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostWed May 11, 2005 8:48 am 
Well, that's an interesting idea, but I think we generally try to put the interests of the citizens/society over the interests of industry, at least in spirit. Back on topic, lest this thread turn into something on Obvectivism, which is thankfully not something we discuss here any more, the idea of having Federal lands in the control of the states is kind of weird, and IMO not in the interest of the whole country. For example, if there's Federal land in Utah, and I live in Washington, I feel like I own a little bit of that land too, and I'd like to see the Utah land held to the same protection standards as our Washington land. Is there precedent for putting Federal land into local conrtrol? Seems like a pretty big can of worms.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Timber Cruiser
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 220 | TRs | Pics
Location: Cosi
Timber Cruiser
Member
PostWed May 11, 2005 12:05 pm 
marylou wrote:
Is there precedent for putting Federal land into local conrtrol? Seems like a pretty big can of worms.
There is a history of this type of transfer, and in recent sessions of congress there has been talk of a bill to make them more common. Since the early 90's, when timber receipts started dropping off to the county coffers, this subject has gotten a lot more interest from local communities and states that are heavily dependant on the federal land base for their economies. Proposed legislation to transfer control of federal lands to states.

"Logging encourages the maintenance of foilage by providing economic alternatives to development."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
mike
Member
Member


Joined: 09 Jul 2004
Posts: 6389 | TRs | Pics
Location: SJIsl
mike
Member
PostWed May 11, 2005 3:24 pm 
A good source of information on western land use issues.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostThu May 12, 2005 11:31 am 
MtnGoat wrote:
so we all own them but not all of us can use them. that doesn't meet my standards for ownership.
Since when can't anyone use them? Anyone can enter these areas, even you. You just can't drive on them. So if I decide to burn down the public library or blow up a courthouse I should be allowed to do so? Afterall, I paid for the damn things.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Allison
Feckless Swooner



Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 12287 | TRs | Pics
Location: putting on my Nikes before the comet comes
Allison
Feckless Swooner
PostThu May 12, 2005 11:43 am 
Of course. We can't deny you access to the library! It's yours to log! I mean, er um use.

www.allisonoutside.com follow me on Twitter! @AllisonLWoods
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Paulina
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 486 | TRs | Pics
Location: Ochoco country
Chief Paulina
Member
PostThu May 12, 2005 3:35 pm 
Here's an interesting perspective that I read in a local paper. The land is owned by the US Govt but now the cost of dealing with it belongs to the state. Don't know about Washington but Oregon certainly cannot afford any more costs. frown.gif

"Life's been good to me so far" - Joe Walsh
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
PostFri May 13, 2005 7:21 pm 
lest we ignore the statements made here concerning "ownership" of "public" land are *entirely* political in nature, I note that the details of who owns the land have simply been brushed aside. it seems some of our members wish to avoid the details concerning the statement made supporting some of the arguments made. wether land is federal or state, the public ownership of same should mean that ALL owners can have access to the land in the manner they desire, from hiking to resource extraction. don't give us the song and dance about how we all own land but by golly, some owners shouldn't be able to use a portion for things such as mines or logs. after all, the meaning of 'public' isn't just a given to be awarded to one viewpoint, and resources gained from extractive use go to the public in any event. This shouldn't be taken as a blanket endorsement for mining or logging the unroaded areas under discussion, merely points for further examination than "public = off limits and that's it" which is the impression I get from the way it is used here. uses by individuals who are in industry, as much members of the public as anyone else, should not be written off, but discussed IMO.

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
#19
Member
Member


Joined: 17 Dec 2001
Posts: 2197 | TRs | Pics
#19
Member
PostFri May 13, 2005 8:59 pm 
Civics, not politics
MtnGoat wrote:
so we all own them but not all of us can use them.
We all have to share them.
Quote:
that doesn't meet my standards for ownership.
I'm sure it doesn't. Again, it's about sharing. In this case you currently share ownership of these lands with a couple hundred million people. It is different from owning something by yourself. It would not be possible to allow millions of people to use the same land simultaneously and not have millions of conflicts. If you and your wife own one car, you have to share it. Now add millions of co-owners to that senario.
Quote:
it's a nice phrase that is used to imply ownership but doesn't actually mean ownership.
Shared ownership of this magnitude has obvious, built-in restrictions. We entrust our elected officials to decide how publicly owned landed will be used. They don't always make the correct choice. I won't agrue that!
Quote:
I note that the details of who owns the land have simply been brushed aside.
You should now be able to understand who owns the land and how it is co-owned.
Quote:
wether land is federal or state, the public ownership of same should mean that ALL owners can have access to the land in the manner they desire, from hiking to resource extraction
I'm sure that you would now agree that it is not possible to allow a couple hundred million people to "have access to the land in the manner they desire, from hiking to resource extraction" without tremendous conflict.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Chief Paulina
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Jun 2004
Posts: 486 | TRs | Pics
Location: Ochoco country
Chief Paulina
Member
PostFri May 13, 2005 9:02 pm 
Who speaks for the land?? It seems that everybody is trying to divide up the land for their own special interests? 200 years ago, Lewis and Clark traveled through this land and ALL was wild. Now, just two centuries later, there is nothing but pavement and buildings and autos. Yet, we are still trying to divide up the remaining 10% of the land that is wild. The Indians lived by their own 10 commandments. The first was 'The Earth is your Mother, care for it'. By contrast, White people of European descent have been trying to conquer everthing in their way.

"Life's been good to me so far" - Joe Walsh
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
PostSat May 14, 2005 10:24 pm 
Quote:
Well, that's an interesting idea, but I think we generally try to put the interests of the citizens/society over the interests of industry, at least in spirit.
since society cannot exist in it's current form, or any technologically advanced one, without industry, the problem with that particular attitude should be obvious.

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
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore



Joined: 15 May 2003
Posts: 14152 | TRs | Pics
Quark
Niece of Alvy Moore
PostSat May 14, 2005 11:23 pm 
I changed the oil in my truck and didn't feel like jacking with the hazmat dump. so what I did was, I poured it in a pond in Skagit WLR. Just my part of it, though, so don't nobody get all bent outta shape or nuthin. People are always getting bent outta shape.

"...Other than that, the post was more or less accurate." Bernardo, NW Hikers' Bureau Chief of Reporting
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 > New direction and agenda for roadless areas
  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