🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <3uobv9$3le@rational.rational.com> donb@keystone (Don Baccus) 
writes:

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


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

Any area that cannot be accessed safely by man on foot or viewed entirely 
from access roads or trails. 

In my first message on this thread, I clearly voiced my support for the 
expansion of the present parks as well as the addition of other key areas. All 
of which could be managed for a fraction of the present CDPA plan. 

The difference I have with the authors of the plan is that I believe the areas 
should be preserved for access by man, not preserved to exclude man. 

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

In Hawaii we commonly see hikers, hunters, mountain bike riders and others on 
the same trails.... When I lived in the SoCal and rode in the Desert it was 
common to see livestock roaming free. I can't ever recall seeing a 
fence in the central Mojave.

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

Your working a poor assumption that Grazing methods in Oregon are applicable 
to the Mojave.

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

Six to Seven million acres. Some areas so vast that they will never be 
accessible by man.

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

As I said.. I support Mojave NP additions and expansion. Just, not at the 
level defined in the CDPA. Call this "a wish for compromise."

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

Your nee-ner, nee-ner comment aside..

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

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

There was  no "facing up".. The GS plan has been in existence for decades. 
The ORV community favored the assesment of fees to purchase and/or manage land 
tracts at Day-One. Unfortunately 95% of all funds gathered have been siphoned 
off to float the California State debt.

>: 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.

Not so, almost all locales in the Mojave opposed the park. Please look back on 
this thread and reference my comment about the Palm Desert Senate Hearings.

>Protection of our natural resources and scenic areas benefits
>the country at large, not conservationists.  

I agree... However, the all encompassing nature of the CDPA has long been 
regarded as unworkable by locally affected business and populace. The authors 
and supporters of the CDPA are typical of the "we know it's right for you" 
attitude with complete disrespect for anyone in their path. I would hope 
that you are aware that, this attitude is becoming increasingly unpopular 
across the country. 

>Subsidized destruction and
>exploitation 

Spare me your all to common, parroted doom and gloom rhetoric!

>benefits those who gain from these welfare-like
>tax-supported activities.

Oh, you mean jobs?

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

>Care to outline the actual subsidies environmentalists are receiving?

The entire funding is on the back of the taxpayer. The local populace does not 
want it and, it appears now that there is not adequate funding for such a 
large project.  If the enviro groups and their backers want their 
form of preserved areas, they should buy them or at least contribute funds to 
the management of the areas. 

If you and your ilk ever get pass the method of forcing your ideals widely on 
the populace and turn to a plan of purchasing areas for preservation, your 
credibility will pretty much be untouchable.

>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.

Look at the nearest restricted public access area due to the lobbying of your 
group and other aligned organizations. You may not have received monetary 
funds but, you certainly received something of value from the public.

>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.

Hmm.. What about the higher cost of food due to loss of subsidies?
Wether you dine at MacDonalds or the local Vege Bar, you are consuming 
subsidies.

>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?

Yep! 

Many of the areas are well protected and will remain so under the BLM and the 
NPS. I'm looking for increased responsible for your actions. Perhaps next time 
around the CDPA will be workable for all and we will have additons and 
expansion of the presnet protected areas instead of thestalemate that exists 
today.

>You're a greedy bastard.

ROTFL!  Look in the mirror, your the greedy one looking demanding my support 
of your draconian land closures.

Again, If you and your ilk want your form of protection, buy the land! 
 

>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.  

Hey, that great!  Now spend the money on some land instead of 
political lobbying and doom and gloom adds.

>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.

'Guess we'll have to see what the next round of elections dictate. 

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

What a chance to change your image.. Sieze the moment!

Pat