🚀 go-pugleaf

Patrick J. Chicas (pjc@aloha.net) wrote:
: In article <3um41l$ei8@rational.rational.com> donb@keystone (Don Baccus) writes:

: >Actually, many conservation proposals are based on science, and
: >are designed to provide habitat for the continued existence
: >of the flora and fauna which make up part of our heritage,
: >and which are part of the wealth of our country.

: Six to Seven million acres worth? I agree on protecting areas as I stated in 
: my original post on this thread but, * Why so much*?

I asked earlier for some specific areas you feel are not worthy
of protection which are included in the new park - you've
not responded.

: >True, love for America is certainly an emotion, but not one
: >to be ashamed of.

: >Perhaps you disagree.

: Huh?  ROTFL!  I am very proud of my country and it's heritage. I am not 
: pleased with "welfare environmentalism".

Where's the welfare, again?  You've used this term before.  I don't
see how policy decisions affecting public lands equates to welfare.

I asked for some specifics as to how to get some of this environmental
welfare, as Portland Audubon could sure use it if it's out there.

Unfortunately, you've not provided the requested information.

: >Right, just a dupe along with all those biologists who are concerned
: >about preserving our biological heritage.

: Ahh, you mean the likes of and/or the followers of Paul Erhlich and Lester 
: Brown?  Thier "doom and gloom" claims have rarely occured. 

No, the wildlife biologists who work on the ground and piece out the
details of the ecology of individual species and localized ecosystems.

BTW, Erhlich has a fine reputation within his field.  When he's
he's strayed into the field of predicting the future on a global
scale, he's made some mistakes. 

: >Why?  The citizens of this country already own most of the land
: >involved.

: Hah!! There it is.. Arrogance at it's best! You assume that the common 
: citizenry want's what you want.

Polls consistently show broadbased public support for conservation.

: >Why not ask the ranchers and miners to cough up some money to buy
: >their own corner of the Mojave 

: They do pay. There is emmense regulation that covers both 
: mining and ranching on public properties as well as their own private 
: properties. Your camp wants to saddle *ALL* of your desires on the taxpayer.  
: Damn "Welfare Environmentalists".

They pay less than the costs of the administrating the programs.

Mining, in particular, often requires only a one-time patenting
fee of $2.50/acre, regardless of the value of the mineral rights.

At least get the facts right.  If you want to support subsidized
mining and grazing and logging on public lands - fine.  That's
a perfectly acceptable point of view, though it happens not to
be mine.

But don't lie about the facts.  I doubt many of the readers of
this group doubt the reality that these subsidies exist.  Hell,
even the Republicans are open about it - though they've decreased
the AUM rate (thus increased the subsidy) there are some conservatives
within the party which have called for ending them.

If they're fake, why would some of your darling conservative
Republicans want to get rid of them?

: >for everlasting exploitation and
: >destruction of the baaaaad desert?

: Ooooo, exploitation and destruction..  Let's be clear here, are you saying 
: ranchers and miners do nothing but exploit and destroy? 

No, but destruction of habitat has certainly been a side-effect of
their activities.  Well documented.  

Again, you might think the habitat destruction which results is
more than offset by the gain society gets from the exploitation.

Fine.  But don't lie about the facts.

: >We've already bought it, via tax money and the lives of our
: >soldiers, either from Mexico or the local tribes.

: So have the RV'ers, the ORV'ers, the Campers, the Hikers, the Ranchers and 
: Miners. What makes your group so special?

Nothing.  But support for conservation is strong in this country.

: A parting question Don.. Do you believe in protecting resources for future 
: generations of mankind or, do you favor a complete lock-down of areas to keep 
: present and future generations out of the Desert and other areas?

It's an irrelevant question - the new park isn't a complete lock-down of
the areas.  Grazing, for instance, has been grandfathered in.  And of
course, hordes of folks will come visit it in coming years (a lot of
people already do).  Check out Joshua Tree (just south) or Death Valley
(just north) and then tell me there's been a complete lock-down.

Camping, hiking, and RV'ing is allowed in all the National Parks I'm
aware of (oh, not Biscayne Bay or whatever the hell that marine
park is).

And the vast majority of public lands are open to mining, grazing,
and logging.   I certainly don't propose that all our public lands
be closed to development.  I do want to see more protected from
development.

: Pat

--

- Don Baccus -