Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-03-2015   #41
lmyers's Avatar
Buena Vista, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,207
Wildfires should be let burn unless they threaten a population center. They are natural and our over management of them over the last 100 years has put us in a position of having huge amounts of fuel built up. Lightning strikes and forest fires have been around longer than humans...

I see no reason to have to dump tons of money into public lands to protect them. You just need laws and rules to prevent consumptive and destructive uses. Management itself is relatively inexpensive if there is limited human infrastructure present.

GARNA’s mission is to foster stewardship of the resources of the greater Arkansas River region through education, volunteerism and experiences.
lmyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015   #42
Boise, Idaho
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 505
Originally Posted by restrac2000 View Post
Per the funding issue and the example of fire...

Let's be fair, the Feds haven't adequately funded wildfire in the west in ages. Our biological budget was raided every year under the guise of "fire spending". The Feds just get to sweep spending under the rug for the next generation to deal with our current deficits and debts. It's an unsustainable model.

Unless there is a major shift in how we tax and and budget monies at the federal level than user fees and permit costs will grow in use not decrease. I for one support that reality if it means creating healthier parks, sustains our resources and allows me to explore phenomenal places. We need to ditch this idea that "our" land is free and cheap as it's as responsible for degrading landscapes as individual politicians. Unless we start dumping tons more money into out lands they are going to continue to degrade exponentially.

I agree wholeheartedly: first, with fire funding (not to mention fire policy, as Lmyers points out); second, with increasing funding (through user fees, or other avenues available).

However, my concern is that the state is even less likely to supply adequate funding than the fed, and would be far more likely (and able) to simply lease or sell much of said land to the highest bidder. I think this is quite obvious to us all, yes?

Anchorless is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015   #43
lmyers's Avatar
Buena Vista, Colorado
Paddling Since: 2005
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 4,207
To me, and all my constituents in conservation, yes. To much of the country, apparently not so much...
GARNA’s mission is to foster stewardship of the resources of the greater Arkansas River region through education, volunteerism and experiences.
lmyers is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015   #44
cedar city, Utah
Join Date: Mar 2008
Posts: 1,931
I personally don't subscribe to the idea that the Feds are inherently better at managing lands or that states are more likely to partake in wholesale privatization of lands. That said, from a bio-centric standpoint, having a more cohesive policy that largely ignores political state boundaries is more functional than divvying up lands at the state level and dealing with divergent philosophies and priorities.

I see plenty of rational for releasing lands to states such as better accountability at smaller scales of government. It just doesn't outweigh my concerns for dealing with an already fragmented landscape.

Sent from my iPhone using Mountain Buzz
restrac2000 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015   #45
2tomcat2's Avatar
Westminster, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1980
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 219
"One final paragraph of advice: do not burn yourselves out. Be as I am - a reluctant enthusiast, a part time crusader, a half-hearted fanatic. Save the other half of yourselves and your lives for pleasure and adventure. It is not not enough to fight for the land; it is even more important to enjoy it. While you can. While its still here" E. Abbey

And we do prefer the term disabled, thank you.
"Life is what happens to you while you're busy making other plans"
2tomcat2 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015   #46
Denver, Colorado
Paddling Since: 1999
Join Date: Feb 2004
Posts: 855
The sale or transfer of federal lands to the states is being pushed by GOP/Tea Party politicians who are literally shoving through bills that are crafted by a corporate-funded think tank called, ALEC. Here is the list of corporations that fund ALEC.

Allow me to show you why I am not making this stuff up. In Colorado the Republican/Tea Party recently gained majority control of the state Senate, and they are currently pushing 12 legislative bills that are near mirror image legislation that was crafted by ALEC.

Here is Colorado Senate Bill 15-039 that deals with jurisdiction over federal lands in the state of CO.

And here is the ALEC legislation that the Colorado Republican/Tea Party Senators copied nearly word for word. Check out both links and see for yourself.

Now the question should be asked for those who don't think that the states would be likely to partake in the privatization of the state's public lands. Do you really think that the oil, gas, coal and other extraction industries fund ALEC to craft legislation that is designed to protect and manage the state's public lands for the enjoyment of all its citizens? And do you really think that these same industries funded the campaigns of these GOP/Libertarians in the hopes that they would better protect and manage the state's public lands for the enjoyment of all its citizens?

These are not cynically-minded questions. This is a harsh reality. The GOP/Tea Party agenda might in all earnestness want to wrestle control away from the big bad federal gov't. But the problem is that they entirely ignore the massive economic concentrations of power that lies behind the scenes, and that would greatly benefit by drowning the government in the bathtub. The Federal gov't certainly has a lot of major problems (corruption, bloated bureaucracies, etc), but like it or not... this is the only institution that still offers citizens (weak) protection from these massive economic concentrations of power. And if anybody thinks these massive economic concentrations of power care about extending the progress of democracy, labor rights, human rights, etc... well, I've got this bridge I wanna sell you.

Originally Posted by lmyers View Post
In the recent and long campaign to designate Browns a monument that was the argument presented by the opposition, but time and again showed they were a small group mostly made up of those with motorized access and mining interests.
The interesting thing here, Lmeyers, is that one of the people who showed up w/ Rep Lamborn at Salida's meeting for Browns canyon monument status is the press secretary for the CO state Senate Republicans. In other words, his boss is the one who sponsored the above ALEC bill. They are a small but very vocal group; and unfortunately they appear much larger than they are because they have huge amounts of financial resources to amplify their message - national PR companies and paid activists.
marko is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015   #47
Boise, Idaho
Join Date: Aug 2010
Posts: 505
Yeah, I don't think there's a shred of doubt that public lands management under the state would look radically different than management under the Fed. And by radically different, you can say goodbye to the multiple use / sustained yield mandate the Fed operates (largely) under. Really, there's just no question they'd give significant swaths of land away to mining, timber, grazing, resource development, and assuredly they would sell the choice lands nearly mountain towns, near rivers, lakes, valleys, and resorts.

Why? Because people would buy that land, and that land could then be taxed to the counties. This would 100% happen - it's already happened with available land. The only exception would be vast tracts of BLM land, which would be simply leased or sold to industry and grazing.

I fail to see how this is not glaringly apparent.

Anchorless is offline   Reply With Quote

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off

Similar Threads
Topic Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Wilderness Tsunami 125 vs. Wilderness Pungo 120? geargirl1 Kayaking | Gear Talk 3 09-20-2013 03:55 PM
USFS Considers Banning Boating in all Federally Managed Lands! doloresgirl Whitewater Kayaking 4 08-07-2008 04:29 PM
River Cleanup - Living Lands & Waters crispy Whitewater Kayaking 0 06-14-2008 07:46 AM
Please respect public lands! Especially unpermited sections! floaty22 Whitewater Kayaking 0 07-03-2006 05:31 PM
A Win For Our Public Lands chadmckenzie26 Whitewater Kayaking 0 12-14-2005 10:35 AM

» Classified Ads
Hala Atcha 86 w stompbox

posted by Rendezvous River Sports

hala atcha is a great whitewater sup

Plum ski 100mm crampon

posted by rforster

New - never used Plum crampons feature a specially...

2015 Specialized Enduro...

posted by go-with-the-Flo

Powered by vBadvanced CMPS v3.2.3

Our Communities

Our communities encompass many different hobbies and interests, but each one is built on friendly, intelligent membership.

» More about our Communities

Automotive Communities

Our Automotive communities encompass many different makes and models. From U.S. domestics to European Saloons.

» More about our Automotive Communities

Marine Communities

Our Marine websites focus on Cruising and Sailing Vessels, including forums and the largest cruising Wiki project on the web today.

» More about our Marine Communities

Copyright 2002-2012 Social Knowledge, LLC All Rights Reserved.

All times are GMT -6. The time now is 06:47 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 1
Copyright ©2000 - 2016, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.