🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick J. Chicas (pjc@aloha.net) wrote:

<snip>

: Face it Dave, you lost.. The Desert Protection Act had a thorough history of
: being unpopular with the public.

Just curious, but by what measure do you recall that the CDPA was unpopular
with the public?  I recall that, within California, polls found the percentage
of citizens in support of the CDPA to hover around the 70% mark for years. 
(Sorry, but I can't provide a reference.  Of course, these polls ranged 
throughout the state's citizenry, not just among the ORV crowd, or the 
dozen-odd grazing permittees affected by the Mojave designation.)

: Since conception, It has been draconian in 
: nature.

 + Mojave grazing permittees have been allowed to retain their leases in
   perpetuity.

 + No funds for private land acquisition have been appropriated - as you note,
   appropriations for the 3 NPS sites in question are barely enough to cover
   current operations (except appropriations currently being debated for the 
   Mojave, which as this thread originally addressed are sufficient to shut it
   down).

 + Wilderness and park boundaries were gerrymandered to preserve current 
   mining claims and access roads.

Etc.  I don't understand how "draconian" fits the bill here.

: Before you rant and rave, I'll insert the following reference to my beliefs.

: -I'm all for expansion of present NP's in the Mojave.
: -I'd love to see Mitchell Caverns and a few other sites as NP sites.
: -The Kelso Depot should receive some form of funding as a historic site.

Read and understood, so please don't consider this a "rant-and-rave".

Scott
All opinions are my own.