Discussion in 'Conservation' started by Ron McNeal, Feb 2, 2018.
What say you?
NYC is a great wilderness study area.
At least it was in the mid-80s, around 42nd Street.
We need more designated Wilderness, not less. Some people won't be happy unless they can fuck up every square mile of the planet.
More wilderness. Less studies.
Good times, huh??
West coast guy meets NYC for the first time...
It was also the first time I had heard of Howard Stern too.
Perhaps you haven't heard: this about local control, and has nothing to do with the environment/planet.
I am for the legal acquiring and keeping of land by the federal government.
I oppose further development on federal lands without approval of local biologists.
I also oppose public lands that do not allow for public use of the land for recreation.
Completely opposed to any more totally hands off public lands.
I am opposed to the exploitation by private business and equally opposed to
Overdomineering centralized control over what occurs on public land. For instance no more lands that don't allow hunting and fishing. These activities are absolutely essential to public lands. Any lands that disallow either of these is completely out of the question on my book.
Our right to hunt and fish is more important than more studying.
Increased use and abuse under the guise of "local control." I don't get this local control concept. USNF are federal land. That makes a citizen in Florida, NY, or me just as much the owner as a citizen of MT. And since when hasn't "local control" been code for generally raping and pillaging the landscape? I dislike being so cynical, but the nation is littered with exactly those kinds of examples.
"Local control" means somebody is in somebody's pocket.
not according to the people who staff the ranger station in Cle Elum. As far as they're concerned (and I base this on my personal interactions with them) "local control" means we keep out everybody we can, with whatever means we can turn up, especially hunters. Our interactions with them have uniformally been nasty, rude, condescending, and there've been times I wonder why one of these bitches hasn't been shot. We quit going into that area after their nastiness cost us 2 tents for an elk camp we'd set up. We weren't allowed to enter the area we'd set the camp in after some fires, even though we had written permission from the head ranger in Wenatchee. They told us we'd be dealing with the sheriff, and in fact called 911 to report us even though we were standing in the station!
Lot's of people in this country have forgotten that the conservation of wildlife in this country began with hunters and that the purpose of conserving game animals is to increase hunting opportunity.
The ironic thing is that without hunters our federal wildlife agencies would have no money at all.
I like the idea of wilderness as much as anyone, but, as a cyclist, I refuse to support the banning of mountain bikes or bicycles in Wilderness Areas, since horses are allowed in said Wilderness Areas. Mountain bikes don't tear up the trails hardly at all, but horses sure leave a lot of hoof-print post-holes and piles of road apples, which attract and breed flies. Also, horses are spooky animals and I don't like 'em, and I don't appreciate their being on the trail.
So, whenever I find a membership solicitation from the Wilderness Society in my PO box, I chuck it straight into the trash.
I'm just the opposite. Bikes absolutely should be banned from wilderness trails. They should be allowed if horses aren't allowed, but I don't know of any wilderness that bans horses. If some lycra wearing dude came skidding around a corner and spooked my livestock, and got someone hurt, they'd be getting their teeth kicked down their throat.
What about some kids in jeans & T-shirts? Just wondering..