|
CrazyPetie
Feb 6, 2009, 9:23 PM
Post #26 of 61
(5787 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 31, 2008
Posts: 407
|
troutboy wrote: CrazyPetie wrote: Granted that it is technically illegal, doesn't it seem like BS that some society or act can just claim up sites like this? I mean if they were that concerned about it they should be digging and researching and such. If they are done trying to find out how the indians lived in caves (which who really cares anyway), then they should let us climb the rocks. Nice try. Report back after you attend Remedial Trolling  T
If you used to live in a rock shelter, and i wanted to climb there, I would disrespect the fuck out of your artifacts. And bolt it.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 6, 2009, 9:40 PM
Post #27 of 61
(5776 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
C'mon, now. Aren't there enough other rocks that don't have archeological value? Why does everything have to be climbed?
|
|
|
|
|
troutboy
Feb 6, 2009, 9:42 PM
Post #28 of 61
(5772 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 25, 2003
Posts: 903
|
CrazyPetie wrote: troutboy wrote: CrazyPetie wrote: Granted that it is technically illegal, doesn't it seem like BS that some society or act can just claim up sites like this? I mean if they were that concerned about it they should be digging and researching and such. If they are done trying to find out how the indians lived in caves (which who really cares anyway), then they should let us climb the rocks. Nice try. Report back after you attend Remedial Trolling T If you used to live in a rock shelter, and i wanted to climb there, I would disrespect the fuck out of your artifacts. And bolt it.
Clearly, Remedial Trolling was of little value. I suggest you find a hobby other than internet fishing.
TS
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 7, 2009, 1:20 AM
Post #29 of 61
(5727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: I have to disagree with you based on my first hand experience. With regards to logging, NFS planning aside ( I know they go thru plenty of paperwork ),
Yes. That paperwork is the result of your opportunity to provide public comment, the results of your opportunity to provid comment in writing, the results of hundreds, if not thousands of hours of survey and evaluation by hydrologists, botanists, wildlife biologists, the prescription of the silviculturist, soils scientist(s), historical review of that exact piece of ground, etc. It is far from just, "boilerplate BS paperwork".
In reply to: the result I see on the ground is nothing less than driving a bull dozer over every square inch a
If this was even slightly the case, what you've seen is absolutely illegal on ALL NFS lands. You either have the opportunity to pursue a lawsuit here, or else you've confused private timber farms with NFS lands (a common occurrence). Also, the BLM manages public lands with a mission statement quite different from the NFS.
In reply to: The forests near my house were recently clear cut and the result looks like the blasted terrain in those old films from WWI.
Even quality, environmentally sensitive logging operations look like shit immediately after harvest. So, that doesn't mean much. Ever seen the after effects of a severe forest fire? It looks like shit too. In my locality, anyhow, clearcutting has been essentially banned for some time. This again makes me strongly suspect that you think that private timber farms and NFS lands are synonymous. They're not. In any case, if you are seeing a clearcut on NFS lands, it is a certainty that has already been clearcut once, if not many times.
That may not make it OK, but the ecological loss happeed before you were born. It's moot now.
In reply to: All the topsoil washed away afterward and silted up the streams.
That's illegal. Period. You've either got the opportunity for lawsuit, an opportunity to end this HIGHLY LOCALIZED practice in the next opportunity to publicly comment on a sale, or else you've confused BLM, State, or Private timber farms with NFS lands.
In reply to: It just looks like hell.
To you. THat doesn't mean anything to anybody. I've watched environmentally sensitive sales planned, with full support from educated environmental organizations (who have funded tree-sits), and still heard random dinks say "it looks like hell". You may be right, or you may be afflicted with a strongly negative personality. I don't know.
In reply to: Plus they left slash piles all over the place
If that's a problem, then you should be able to quote their burn plan that says they weren't going to do so. Or, you may have confused State/private lands with NFS lands. Or, they ran out of money at the district level (which is a pretty complicated story, actually, many times), in which case the Washington or Regional Office should have stepped in to pay for it, unless certain legal criteria beyond anyone's control occurred. If you really care, you'd be making phone calls.
In reply to: Was the NFS plan to strip the ground bare so that the only thing left is weeds (mostly invasive species by the way).
It certainly shouldn't have been. But, it's all in the eye of the beholder anyhow, at least frequently. If invasive species occupy more than 5% cover of the unit, than it strongly suggests to me that you HAVE confused private lands with NFS lands, or, that you at least live in a very different part of the country than I. (are you aware, that almost ALL eastern NFS lands were cleared farm land bought by the government from settlers and wholly reforested?)
If only invasive species exist following even a clearcut, this strongly suggests, again, that you've mistaken private timber farm for NFS lands.
But. I've been incredibly fortunate to work in a highly localized NFS environment with many very talented, patient, and highly ethical people. We do good work, locally, and the situation you describe is something I've NEVER seen in recent history on NFS lands here.
On occasion, I've traveled to other Regions, and other forests. Sometimes, I'm totally disappointed, if not outraged at what I see. Appaently, local personalities within the agency have tremendous influence, and there are indeed "dinosaurs" left in the agency (and in the environmental activist organizations as well).
All I can really offer then, is that you ARE given the opportunities to participate in Timber Sale (and other public use) plannings. If you don't like what you see, you have no cause to complain if you don't show up to those meetings, or at least provide your comments in writing at the appropriate time. This applies to ALL public use decisions, including climbing access.
Believe it or not, there is no autonomous, unfeeling, industrial organism that overrides all sensible management. Do participate if you can. You'll still not always like the outcome. Even as an agency employee, I'm frequently frustrated, disgusted, outraged......but, you can only take it one decision at a time, and I guarantee that you CAN influence the decision process if you are truly in the right. I am sorry if you suffer under a local bureaucrat that is intolerable. It hapens.
And, an administration has just left, and a new one come in.
My 2 cents for now. The kids are fussy.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_horse_flats
Feb 7, 2009, 1:20 AM
Post #30 of 61
(5727 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64
|
j_ung wrote: C'mon, now. Aren't there enough other rocks that don't have archeological value? Why does everything have to be climbed?
If there was coal or oil underneath it, it would not have had any archeological value to begin with. However, since the infraction was committed by a hippie dirt-bag climber, the establishment gets pissed off. On the other hand, if you were a coal company that owned your own senator, you could legally tear apart the whole mountain.
There was a recent incident in my area were some climbers got busted for making a trail ($600 fine), while just uphill from the location, a logging company was clear cutting and bull dozing new roads.
|
|
|
|
|
lvpyne
Feb 7, 2009, 2:11 AM
Post #31 of 61
(5719 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 7, 2005
Posts: 207
|
dead_horse_flats wrote: If there was coal or oil underneath it, it would not have had any archeological value to begin with.
Not to be totally pedantic or anything, but "archaeological value" can be very difficult to determine and it's not always the case that "archaeological value" is necessarily trumped by "Big Bad Industries." Understanding that complex negotiation brings up several questions. For example: What does it mean to have "value"? To whom? For how long? Under what circumstances? Is "value" the same thing, then, as "archaeological significance"?
These are the sorts of issues that archaeologists, land owners, state legislators, etc. have to deal with. Sometimes (depending on numerous factors) it makes sense to excavate a site. Sometimes (again, depending on numerous factors) it doesn't. Sometimes the archaeological "value" (i.e. knowledge that can be gained through understanding the site and its artifacts) can be best understood by excavating the site and analyzing artifacts in a lab. Sometimes the archaeological "value" (i.e. prehistoric to historical continuity of a site for a particular cultural group) matters more than anything else.
In short, there are very few blanket statements that can be made that would apply to each and every site. Although, as climbers, "leave it alone" is a pretty good one. 
|
|
|
|
|
dead_horse_flats
Feb 7, 2009, 4:54 AM
Post #32 of 61
(5705 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: you've confused private timber farms with NFS lands (a common occurrence).
My stomping grounds don't have "private" tree farms like you do out in oregon. Although I get frustrated with the way the national forest is treated like a tree farm. Not to say that logging doesn't occur on private property, but landowners around here prefer to shoot first, so I dont make that mistake.
Tree_wrangler wrote: it is a certainty that has already been clearcut once, if not many times. That may not make it OK, but the ecological loss happeed before you were born. It's moot now.
Thanks. Thats the point I was too slow to get to. The area this thread was originally about has also been logged once, or more likely, twice. The area doesn't bears any resemblance to its original state, and more than likely it will get logged again in the near future which will completely wipe away whatever trail the climbers built.
Tree_wrangler wrote: That's illegal. Period. You've either got the opportunity for lawsuit, an opportunity to end this HIGHLY LOCALIZED practice in the next opportunity to publicly comment on a sale, or else you've confused BLM, State, or Private timber farms with NFS lands.
I cant agree with you that it is highly localized. I've walked thru recent clear cuts in all the northwestern states from south dakota to washington and seen the same effect. But in areas like wyoming or the black hills of south dokata, to think that you could oppose the scorched earth, take no prisoners, style of logging would be very naive.
Let me add that I dont see that cutting down trees is a problem. I wish they would cut them all down cause the damned beetle infested things keep falling over and blocking my mountain bike trails. What I dont like is, first, the miles of new logging roads that the forest service continues to cut in to support the logging, and ,secondly, the impact of the heavy machinery used in the logging process. Its frustrating to see a tracked harvester spin 360's thru a riparian zone.
I just cant see complaining about a piddly little trail when sooner or later a logging company will come in and nuke the whole place anyway.
|
|
|
|
|
dead_horse_flats
Feb 7, 2009, 5:12 AM
Post #33 of 61
(5701 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 14, 2006
Posts: 64
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: That's illegal. Period. You've either got the opportunity for lawsuit, an opportunity to end this HIGHLY LOCALIZED practice in the next opportunity to publicly comment on a sale, or else you've confused BLM, State, or Private timber farms with NFS lands.
And speaking of oregon. I'm sure you have seen a map of the forests around Sisters or Bend. Damned if that aint a bunch of logging roads, and those roads aren't going feral.
How many tax payer dollars go into the 'on going' road maintanance in support of logging in that area.
But again the point is how can you whine about one very low impact climber trail, when the rest of the national forest has a logging road damn near every quarter mile.
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 9, 2009, 2:27 PM
Post #34 of 61
(5644 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: But again the point is how can you whine about one very low impact climber trail,
For the record, I don't really give a shit about a climber trail, and nobody whined about it. It was just a heads up kind of a thing.
In reply to: What I dont like is, first, the miles of new logging roads that the forest service continues to cut in to support the logging,
In my area, for the most part, new roads are NOT constructed anymore. Sometimes, temporary roads are constructed for a year or two, and then they are immediately subsoiled out of existence, and seeded with a diverse native species blend, and planted w/ trees if we have the money for the trees. I've seen some recent road construction, but the sale was put under contract 10 years ago, and the timber company is only now filling their decade-old obligation.
And for the record, relict roads ARE a problem, but one by one, we work on fixing, removing, improving, etc. those. One of my recent projects revolves around encouraging established roads to "go feral" within a year or two, instead of 30 years, or....never.
We try.
But, I can't undo in one year what occurred over 60 years. Environmental restrictions and "NEPA" hold up ecologically sensitive projects just as much as they hold up insensitive ones. So, progress is inexorably slow.
In reply to: the impact of the heavy machinery used in the logging process. Its frustrating to see a tracked harvester spin 360's thru a riparian zone.
Machines do not enter riparian areas in Region 6 anymore. Period. I don't know about your area.
Keep in mind, that after the NW Forest Plan (Bill Clinton), Region 6 was (and still is) held to environmental standards WAY beyond the rest of the nation. We were the epicenter of harsh industrial logging too, for decades, but those days are over.
And that doesn't mean that I still love everything that's done.
Cheers.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Feb 10, 2009, 5:23 AM
Post #35 of 61
(5601 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
dead_horse_flats wrote: j_ung wrote: C'mon, now. Aren't there enough other rocks that don't have archeological value? Why does everything have to be climbed? If there was coal or oil underneath it, it would not have had any archeological value to begin with. However, since the infraction was committed by a hippie dirt-bag climber, the establishment gets pissed off. On the other hand, if you were a coal company that owned your own senator, you could legally tear apart the whole mountain. There was a recent incident in my area were some climbers got busted for making a trail ($600 fine), while just uphill from the location, a logging company was clear cutting and bull dozing new roads.
True dat, and I don't begrudge them the coal, timber, gold and the oil myself. It's all about "Control", THEY (da gobment) are looking, no, they ARE, using this kind of bullshit to control the true owners of the land: the people. I'm sure that the dudes doing the work will appreciate the heads up TW. The only way around this kind of big brother bullshit is to pull their funding. However, with the current rush to dole out a few billion dollars, like 800 billion, a lot of that money will go to hiring assholes to come along and hassle you folks for just being on the land you own! Oh, not walking on an established trail? Fine! Oh, climbing where you want? Another Fine!
Those ASSHOLES should be tossed out to do real and productive work instead of being paid big money by all of you to count toilet paper rolls and hassle gentle souls. [/rant]
(This post was edited by billcoe_ on Feb 10, 2009, 5:25 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 10, 2009, 3:48 PM
Post #36 of 61
(5580 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: THEY (da gobment) are looking, no, they ARE, using this kind of bullshit to control the true owners of the land: the people.
It is the expressed wish of "the people" that YOU DON'T disrespect their communally valued cultural resource.
Apparently ignorance isn't bliss.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 10, 2009, 3:55 PM
Post #37 of 61
(5579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: In reply to: THEY (da gobment) are looking, no, they ARE, using this kind of bullshit to control the true owners of the land: the people. It is the expressed wish of "the people" that YOU DON'T disrespect their communally valued cultural resource. Apparently ignorance isn't bliss.
I appreciate your voice of reason tree wrangler but if you think the actions of the Bush admin in the last 8 years with respect to OUR natural resources reflected The Will of the People you are flat out wrong.
The Interior dept of the last 8 years reflected the will of Big Business. Period.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Feb 10, 2009, 4:00 PM
Post #38 of 61
(5569 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
dingus wrote: Tree_wrangler wrote: In reply to: THEY (da gobment) are looking, no, they ARE, using this kind of bullshit to control the true owners of the land: the people. It is the expressed wish of "the people" that YOU DON'T disrespect their communally valued cultural resource. Apparently ignorance isn't bliss. I appreciate your voice of reason tree wrangler but if you think the actions of the Bush admin in the last 8 years with respect to OUR natural resources reflected The Will of the People you are flat out wrong. The Interior dept of the last 8 years reflected the will of Big Business. Period. DMT
Just the last 8 years? Right......
This isn't a partisan issue, resource companies have had the run of the land for the last 200 years in this country.
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 10, 2009, 4:08 PM
Post #39 of 61
(5560 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: I appreciate your voice of reason tree wrangler but if you think the actions of the Bush admin in the last 8 years with respect to OUR natural resources reflected The Will of the People you are flat out wrong
I've made no statements to that effect whatsoever.
I detest the Bush administration, and everything it stood for.
But, if you think that when a new administration comes in, that the entire government labor force suddenly shifts direction to some new fad, then you don't understand the government.
I was here before Bush. I'm here after Bush. I am your public servant. I work hard. I value your collective opinions, and I seek to do work that provides good value for your tax dollars. I'm not going to become unethical just because some new dink gets voted in for 8 years. After all, I'M the one who has to deal in person with an irate public.
And so do all the people I work with. Quite frankly, there has been far less effect from the Bush administration on the ground than you believe. Most of his really devastating policies in forest management were immediately challenged in court, and the environmental litigations were the success stories....he's (bush) been checked at many turns.
The gross exceptions seem to be in the mining and energy industry....but most of that goes on on BLM or other Dept. of Interior lands.....and they have a very different mission statement. The express purpose of the BLM is to open the land for industry.....
You've probably read about changes to the ESA (endangered species act) recently. Much hue and cry about the Bush administration's new policy.
Fear not. MANY lawsuits were immediately filed. Bush has not fared well in court, mostly because the rationale behind his policies is, well, non-existent.
Cheers. It's never as bad as we think, unless we WANT it that way.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 10, 2009, 4:25 PM
Post #40 of 61
(5551 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
dynosore wrote: dingus wrote: Tree_wrangler wrote: In reply to: THEY (da gobment) are looking, no, they ARE, using this kind of bullshit to control the true owners of the land: the people. It is the expressed wish of "the people" that YOU DON'T disrespect their communally valued cultural resource. Apparently ignorance isn't bliss. I appreciate your voice of reason tree wrangler but if you think the actions of the Bush admin in the last 8 years with respect to OUR natural resources reflected The Will of the People you are flat out wrong. The Interior dept of the last 8 years reflected the will of Big Business. Period. DMT Just the last 8 years? Right...... This isn't a partisan issue, resource companies have had the run of the land for the last 200 years in this country.
If you failed to see what went on this last 8 years YOU are the partisan. Regardless of what went on a hundred years ago the Bush admin was undeniably trying to 'reset the balance sheet' of business vs environmentalism.
Wake up.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 10, 2009, 4:28 PM
Post #41 of 61
(5543 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: I detest the Bush administration, and everything it stood for.
Me too.
In reply to: But, if you think that when a new administration comes in, that the entire government labor force suddenly shifts direction to some new fad, then you don't understand the government.
I'm an ex-Government employee. So yes I understand how G works just fine.
And it is undeniable that the Bush admin DID insert its political will into the management of Interior.
This tone of fundamentalism reverberated down to the lowest echelons of the NPS, for example.
Cheers
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 10, 2009, 4:51 PM
Post #42 of 61
(5531 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: And it is undeniable that the Bush admin DID insert its political will into the management of Interior.
Yes. That doesn't mean that I, as a lower level servant am complicit to the crimes of a temporary administration though.
In reply to: This tone of fundamentalism reverberated down to the lowest echelons of the NPS, for example
Also true. But I doubt that any real change occurred within the hearts of the NPS field employees....at least the ones who had some investment in their local park. That doesn't mean that they didn't toe the line to implement new direction (or lose their jobs).
There is still hope. He's gone, baby, gone!
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 10, 2009, 5:54 PM
Post #43 of 61
(5504 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: Yes. That doesn't mean that I, as a lower level servant am complicit to the crimes of a temporary administration though.
Agreed. That in and of itself says nothing at all about you individually.
In reply to: Also true. But I doubt that any real change occurred within the hearts of the NPS field employees....at least the ones who had some investment in their local park. That doesn't mean that they didn't toe the line to implement new direction (or lose their jobs).
Yes I think this is entirely accurate in my experience.
In reply to: There is still hope. He's gone, baby, gone!
Yes and Obama immediately descinding the oil and gas leases for the Canyonlands is a very positive sign indeed.
It never ceases to amaze me that political conservatives are not about conservation at all... they are almost to a person all about exploitation. Oh they like to put fancy names on it but at the end of the day conservatives don't conserve anything - they consume it.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Feb 10, 2009, 10:44 PM
Post #44 of 61
(5480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: It is the expressed wish of "the people" that YOU DON'T disrespect their communally valued cultural resource. Apparently ignorance isn't bliss.
Bullshit, if this "cultural resource" had any potential value at all, even the slightest, it should have immediately been turned over to the academics to study. It shouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime to have the local University rope it off and study it. If you are suggesting this is that case but that hasn't happened yet then those responsible should be fired ASAP for gross incompetence. This is clearly nothing more than more government make work programs at our expense. The FS cut down all the F*ing trees and are now sniffing around for an empire building mission so they can keep their jobs and expand the bureaucracy: and here they found another one, and it's fucking with us. Tomorrow it will be you. Once they engage you, then there has to be a big expensive process whereby they can hire more people for bullshit unnecessary studies and answering peoples hate mail as they work this lengthy worthless process.
Total, complete and 100% bullshit.
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 10, 2009, 11:17 PM
Post #45 of 61
(5470 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: Bullshit, if this "cultural resource" had any potential value at all, even the slightest, it should have immediately been turned over to the academics to study. It shouldn't cost the taxpayer a dime to have the local University rope it off and study it.
That has already occurred. The "people" simply value it as a historic site, and wish to preserve it as such.
In reply to: This is clearly nothing more than more government make work programs at our expense.
Please justify your irrational nonsense. What work is being "made" by the government here? Remember, this bolting is occurring on someone's private land as well....I guess a law enforcement officer enforcing vandalism laws against private citizens is bullshit, huh?
I'm sure the landowner feels more oppressed by people like you.
In reply to: The FS cut down all the F*ing trees and are now sniffing around for an empire building mission
Ever heard of the "green wave"? We're busier than ever working on thinning projects with full support of the environmental groups.
Not to mention that, if you didn't have publicly administered forests, the entire country would look like Nebraska. Look at a map of Nebraska....where would you choose to sit on public lands? Just remember that.......if it weren't for intelligent GOVERNMENT decisions made for YOUR benefit, you'd have NO LANDS.
In reply to: Tomorrow it will be you.
Please start making sense.....You're absolutely babbling.
In reply to: Once they engage you, then there has to be a big expensive process whereby they can hire more people for bullshit unnecessary studies and answering peoples hate mail as they work this lengthy worthless process.
What process, what unneccessary studies? Evaluating habitat potential for rare species, soils analysis, cultural analysis prior to land management activities is bullshit? What planet are you from?
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Feb 11, 2009, 12:22 AM
Post #46 of 61
(5457 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: That has already occurred. The "people" simply value it as a historic site, and wish to preserve it as such. Either it's posted off limits or it isn't.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Feb 11, 2009, 12:29 AM
Post #47 of 61
(5455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
In reply to: This is clearly nothing more than more government make work programs at our expense.
Tree_wrangler wrote: Please justify your irrational nonsense. What work is being "made" by the government here? Remember, this bolting is occurring on someone's private land as well....I guess a law enforcement officer enforcing vandalism laws against private citizens is bullshit, huh? I'm sure the landowner feels more oppressed by people like you.
I see this all the time in large organizations, especially gov't ones. Their prime mission is to ensure that they have work. They do this by expanding their mission. This has happened in the Forest Service as they have transition from the agency that is there to administer tree cutting to their current make believe jobs. Does tree thinning still occur? Of course. Yet you have all these teams, groups and specialists running around claiming that their function and particular "resource preservation" specialty is so critical that they MUST hire more people to conduct studies and answer mail they get on various make work projects. Thats the way it is, perhaps everyone knows this but you. It's all about control and job security.
As far as the bolting, you don't know if the very landowner is doing it on his own property or if a person has permission. All you reported was the FS alert. You don't have a clue.
|
|
|
|
|
billcoe_
Feb 11, 2009, 12:35 AM
Post #48 of 61
(5453 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 30, 2002
Posts: 4694
|
Tree_wrangler wrote: Not to mention that, if you didn't have publicly administered forests, the entire country would look like Nebraska. Look at a map of Nebraska....where would you choose to sit on public lands? Just remember that.......if it weren't for intelligent GOVERNMENT decisions made for YOUR benefit, you'd have NO LANDS.
Well, I can't say what you are discussing there. the planet I'm from would have Nebraska being grasslands, not trees. I can look around on lands that were traditionally forests and see Weyerhauser, Crown Pacific, Pope and 'Talbot etc etc and other private forests. There would still be trees without the Forest Service. There would probably be more, as the FS job has been to get them cut down. They did it and now they are looking for other missions. Being the forests policemen looks to be one of them. One that many do not want and is not needed. You sure you work in this field?
That's what many of us see. Frankly, I'd rather the money get put to productive use rather than to hire a bunch more Government slackhounds to screw with honest people and count toilet paper rolls all day.
Take care
|
|
|
|
|
Tree_wrangler
Feb 11, 2009, 2:36 PM
Post #49 of 61
(5422 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 403
|
In reply to: Well, I can't say what you are discussing there.
Then you should consider paying attention.
In reply to: the planet I'm from would have Nebraska being grasslands, not trees. I can look around on lands that were traditionally forests and see Weyerhauser, Crown Pacific, Pope and 'Talbot etc etc and other private forests.
I'm talking about public lands, not about forests per se. Get out a map, look at Nebraska, Ohio, Oklahoma, and many others. Pay attention to how much land is held as a public resource.
Realize, that, if you were say, in Nebraska, and you thought, "I'd like to go for a hike", that there is NO WHERE for you to go, save for "pay for play" state parks with manicured lawns and flush toilets.
Now realize that, had there been no person with vision IN THE GOVERNMENT, which is only a representative of your interests (at least conceptually), that Oregon, Washington, and many other states would also have no places for you to access.
Realize that private individuals dynamited the entire forest ecosystem of the Eastern states out of existence, and that it was the Forest Service, acting in the best interests of their children's children, who bought the land back from private citizens and replanted the forests. Had they not done so, many of our opportunities for natural recreation in the East would simply be private ranchettes.
Also realize that trees have never been an issue, but ecosystems are. To suggest that FS lands are moonscapes, and that private timber farms are not is utterly ridiculous. Quite frankly, it's obvious that you don't have the tools to make a rational evaluation one way or the other....
In reply to: FS job has been to get them cut down. They did it
That's funny. I guess the 200,000+ acres of Old Growth (on my district alone) that I stare at every day is just a figment of my imagination.
In reply to: Being the forests policemen looks to be one of them.
Yeah. Period. Someone needs to stop people like you from hydraulically mining streams without any planning, from excavating cultural sites that still belong to existing tribes, just so you can have a 5,000 year old artifact sitting in a shoebox at home, or building ATV trails through the middle of ecologically sensitive meadows. IN reality, the public at large appreciates that we protect our communal resource, for our kids, from people like you.
In reply to: Frankly, I'd rather the money get put to productive use
I don't believe that you even know what "productive use" is. Please, tell us. Remember, the world is not a widget factory.
In reply to: Government slackhounds to screw with honest people
I've worked my fair share in product-oriented heavy industry as well. Believe me, the private industry is not more efficient. That is a myth perpetuated by the industries in an effort to steal away public control of public resources and to place that commonwealth into a very few private hands. Moreover, private industry does shitty, cut and run, "only the dollar matters" work.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 11, 2009, 2:39 PM
Post #50 of 61
(5420 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
tree-wrangler I appreciate your strong voice of reason and your passion for your job.
Cheers and thanks for posting up.
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
