🚀 go-pugleaf

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

: What's (until recently) Ralph?  Remeber my comment that supported expansion 
: and establishment of NPS facilities in the Mojave?  There should be balance..
: The CDPA at six to seven million acres was far, far from any balance.

Why is it too big?  Sheer numbers are meaningless.  Give some
specific examples of areas that you feel should be removed.

: Correct me if I'm wrong, but no ORV group has ever wished to lock out another 
: group of people. The CDPA in many facits does just that.

But ORV use is often incompatible with other uses of the land, for
instance in Oregon designated ORV recreation areas are fenced off
and not leased for grazing.  Grazing and organized ORV use just
aren't compatible.  

Strangely, while such ORV areas are free of cattle, the proposed
CDPA grandfathers in current grazing allotments.

Now, who is locking what out of where?

: Pushing an extreme measure aligns with power and control.

Extreme in your mind, of course.  This is a subjective statement.
What are the objective criteria which makes the law extreme?

Pushing to defeat a reasonable act, such as the the CDPA, aligns
with power and control.

See?  I've proved my statement just like you've proved yours.

: In California the ORV folks have paid millions into the "Green Sticker 
: License Fund". The small fraction that hasn't been syphoned off has purchased 
: or contributed towards the managment of many ORV areas. 

It has been nice to see a segment of the ORV community face up to
their responsibilities, in part.

: In complete contrast, the CDPA bears directly on the taxpayer without focus on 
: the environmental groups.

The public at large also benefits, as will local businesses, etc.

In fact, one of the big fears in rural areas when NPs are proposed
is often that increased popularity will bring more settlement and
change the lifestyle that they've become used to.

Protection of our natural resources and scenic areas benefits
the country at large, not conservationists.  Subsidized destruction and
exploitation benefits those who gain from these welfare-like
tax-supported activities.

: Call this a situation of "welfare-environmentalism". 

Care to outline the actual subsidies environmentalists are receiving?

I want to know about them so that I can get some for Portland Audubon,
obviously we've missed the boat here.  Plugging in this welfare
will help balance our budget it.  Thanks - please give details.

: I think it is high time that enviro groups as a whole cough up the cash to 
: support their projects. Most certainly they would gain credibility with 
: todays economics aware populace by largely subsidizing the projects they hold 
: so dear.

For the most part, conservation SAVES the tax-payer money by reducing
or eliminating (eventually, in the case of grandfathered-in grazing!)
tax-subsidized programs.

So you want us to pay from our pocket to save the tax-payer money
by preserving our national heritage, scenic areas, and natural
resources?

You're a greedy bastard.

: With 
: declining membership, a consistent drop in revenues and the cutting of enviro 
: group jobs, you'd think someone would wake up in that camp..

Memberships have been booming for many groups since, oh, early last
November.  As has grant money.  At Portland Audubon, we've seen
an increased willingness on the part of individuals, corporations,
and foundations to give money to conservation groups in the same
time frame.  

A lot of folks got complacent because they thought we'd "won",
whatever the hell that means, and didn't imagine that the
Republicans would be so agressive in dismantling 25 years of
legislation (largely passed under Republican leadership in
the White House) which most people support.

They've been shook up, now they're getting active.
--

- Don Baccus -