🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick J. Chicas (pjc@aloha.net) wrote:
: In article <3uelmm$d61@hprcl192.mayfield.hp.com> jorgensons@mayfield.hp.com (Scott Jorgenson) writes:

: I recall that, within California, polls found the percentage
: >of citizens in support of the CDPA to hover around the 70% mark for years. 

: It would be very interesting to know what the same pollsters predicted before 
: the last Republican landslide.  As it stands in history, the bill was 
: presented for *years* without success.

This, of course, is an example of the fallacious reasoning that voting
Republican means that one is anti-conservation.  Pollsters were
predicting a big gain by Republicans for quite some time before the
election; they predicted they'd probably control the House but that
control of the Senate was up in the air.  And that's pretty much
how it worked out.  Polls also showed strong support for conservation
issues like preservation of endangered species, but that folks didn't
rate this as being very important in there decision as to who to
vote for.

All of this is consistent with supporting the CDPA and voting
Republican (though you did return a Demo senator, didn't you?).

: When the CDPA did pass, It rode in on the backs of Di-Fi and Boxer.

Though presented for years, this was the first time it had the
backing of both Senators from California, I believe.  There's
a long-standing tradition that such legislation won't get
introduced without support from at least one of the state's
Senators, and while preservation bills are quite often introduced
with the support of only one of a state's Senators, it is rare
to pass such bills with the active opposition of the other,
and fairly rare even if the other is simply non-supportave.

Since the woman who was elected Senator had made passing of the
act an issue in her campaign, her winning is consistent with
support for the act in California.

: In reflection the 
: Democrats soundly lost the vote in the affected regions in the most recent 
: elections. Looking back to the 7 year long struggle, I personally attended 
: numerous rallies and a Senate Hearing were CDPA supporters were outnumbered 15 
: to 1. Of course, the hearing and the rallies were held in the Desert areas and 
: not in the Bay Area or Metro LA.. 

Yes, rural areas have traditionally fought parks.  Olympic NP, which
is something like fourth or fifth most popular in the system (at least
during the year I saw figures for), was bitterly fought by the locals
and is now an important cornerstone of the economy of NW Washington.
It is unthinkable to most of the population that the park not be
there.  We could go down a long list...

: Sir, you clearly admit your comments are without reference.

Well, so are yours...

: > + 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.

: What was the last acerage count?  6,000,000 to 7,000,000 million I believe...
: Some areas so vast that *no man* would ever see the interior. Why so much?

Well, if *no man* will ever see the interior, why the brouhaha over
protection?  If *no man* will see them, exploitation will be difficult.

Or were the anti-conservation folks in the desert areas proposing that
these areas be set aside for exploitation by *women*?

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

: Just a thought...  I'll be the main-line enviro groups could purchase
: or contribute towards the management of some wonderful parcels of land for 
: preservation by setting aside just a portion of the money they spend on 
: campaign contributions.  

Why should we purchase lands that are already in the public domain?
Why shouldn't the RANCHERS by these lands (or at least lease them
at market value)?  Why should miners be able to patent them for
$2.50 and acre?

Why is it that folks like you insist that exploiters get use for
little or no cost, but that conservation should be fully funded
by conservationists?

The American People bought and paid for that land, why should we
pay for it again?  We bought it with lives and with treaty purchases
from Mexico and Native Americans.  Money spent in settlements came
from, of course, taxes on the American People.

Why should conservationists have to pay from their own pockets
to protect the heritage and natural resources of the country
and its people? 

--

- Don Baccus -