Mountain Bike Reviews Forum banner
1 - 20 of 34 Posts

·
I do small drops.
Joined
·
215 Posts
Well, at least they're not going to build roads, the just can. "Roadless areas are roadless for a reason."

HA!

I hate conservative views on the environment! Conservatism everywhere else rules, but why do they have to tear apart the earth? f***in' A! It's just matter of time before 6 lane interstates run through the middle of these National Forests! DAMN THIS PISSES ME OFF! Anyways, how many years before we can vote some other moron into office?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
If i'm not mistaken, didn't Mister Clinton's action take that land out of possible use for mtn. bikers also?
As for 6 lane freeways going thru the middle of National forests, most of them already do. If it's fedral land it's just about all National Forest, National Grasslands, BLM, or Some kind of park or preserve. I don't think you'll see a flury of roadbuilding beginning.
The article asks why states rather than the feds should have jurisdiction over the use of these lands, & I would reply, as I understand it that's what our constitution calls for.
All that said, I'm not the rape the land developer type. Some wilderness is a great thing. But, living in Alaska, I see unbelievable amounts of land that virtually none of us will ever be able to enjoy due to federal land regulations. Somewhere in there is a balance.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,571 Posts
I do not trust environmentalists.

"Jim Angell, a lawyer with the Earthjustice law firm, said plaintiffs already are lining up to challenge the changes announced Thursday."

Yeah, I'm going to trust an enviromentalist. Geez, you think conservatives/liberals lie, listen to what groups like this espouse. They make your basic politician sound downright honest.

As I've said about other envoirnmental organizations, they are basically small groups of people dedicated to keeping large groups of people out of the wilderness. I.E., its okay for them to play but not us.

No stupid smiley faces here. I mean what I say about environmentalists.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
138 Posts
the enviro-nazi's want EVERYBODY out of the forest. Mountain bikers, hourseback riders, dirtbiker's , hiker's, they will post pictures of it on the internet, then we can look at it and not ruin it (according to there wishes and desires). Don't forget the enviro-nutheads get a lot of $ from city focks who watch to much TV telling them about the forest. They are never out there, it is people who ride mountain bikes, hunt, fish, hike, have sex outdoors who really love and appreciate this gift. I can keep goimg, but I think I'll go for a nice dirt bike ride and think about it.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,931 Posts
bikescars101 said:
Anyways, how many years before we can vote some other moron into office?
Quote: "Eight days before leaving office in 2001, Clinton acted to take decisions about roadless forest land away from local federal managers."

If the incoming president have been a Democrat do you think Clinton would have done everything possible to make any action look bad? Do you think Gore would have had to deal with undoing impossible water standards?
 

·
Log off and go ride!
Joined
·
1,874 Posts
The sierra club and the rest of the environmental industry all supported John Kerry during the last election. He was the 'environmental candidate'.

Yet John Kerry's own campaign position statement on public lands SUPPORTED giving states and local governments a greater voice in federal land management. In other words Kerry ENDORSED the heart of the very plan that the environmental industry now opposes.

Ironic, isn't it?
 

·
Preemptive Revenger
Joined
·
867 Posts
voodoovegan said:
It's all about us and them. F*ck them and let's get what is owed to us!!!!
Nothing is owed to you. Nothing.
 

·
Preemptive Revenger
Joined
·
867 Posts

·
Preemptive Revenger
Joined
·
867 Posts
stevenfallover said:
the enviro-nazi's want EVERYBODY out of the forest. Mountain bikers, hourseback riders, dirtbiker's , hiker's, they will post pictures of it on the internet, then we can look at it and not ruin it (according to there wishes and desires). Don't forget the enviro-nutheads get a lot of $ from city focks who watch to much TV telling them about the forest. They are never out there, it is people who ride mountain bikes, hunt, fish, hike, have sex outdoors who really love and appreciate this gift. I can keep goimg, but I think I'll go for a nice dirt bike ride and think about it.
yeah, I'm pretty much opposed to anything that the Sierra Club is for. You hit the nail on the head with respect to users versus voters. Why should anybody who lives on the east coast, who's never been west of the Mississippi, have any control over how Alaskan wilderness gets managed?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
54 Posts
rapwithtom said:
This is not about access, it is about who controls the access. Bush is pushing control down to a more local level; in this case from the Feds to the States. That can only be good for everybody, as each community will have more control over its resources, as opposed to some far away bureaucrat.
Kind of like how the supreme court ruled that each community must judge for itself what constitutes obscenity.

NY
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
395 Posts
Discussion Starter · #14 ·
It seems to me that all this does, is now opens the door for lobbyists to begin courting greedy politicians at the state level.
I am not a political type, so I may be missing something here, but it doesn't sound right to me. I believe the Bush administration is, and always will be, for the drilling, mining, and logging companys. I think this is just a sly way for the republicans to get into our national forests. Take for instance, this article about a land sale in Crested Butte last year.

The people of Crested Butte, CO had been fighting for 30 years to keep mining off of Mt. Emmons. Well, the BA very quietly sold 155 acres of this fought over land to a mining company for $875, under an antiquated law.
A 1/10th acre plot there sells for $100,000. If the mining company chooses to not mine, they stand to make $150,000,000 off of a $875 investment if they sell it off. Not a bad return, eh? The BA could reform this law, and bring the #'s up to date, but they are choosing not to.

Here are 2 articles that you may, or may not, be interested in reading.

http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=71

http://www.bettermines.org/news.cfm?newsID=1
 

·
Metalheadbikerider
Joined
·
2,904 Posts
Wrong!

rapwithtom said:
This is not about access, it is about who controls the access. Bush is pushing control down to a more local level; in this case from the Feds to the States. That can only be good for everybody, as each community will have more control over its resources, as opposed to some far away bureaucrat.
The control is still at the fed level. States can petition the federal gov't for protections, but the feds make the final decision. So states will hold a bunch of meetings and spend millions of dollars only to go back to the feds with a recommendation that already exists-DO NOT DEVELOP. It's clear what the majority of people want, but that's not what the corporations (and Bush admin.) want and therefore the change in policy. :mad:
 

·
Log off and go ride!
Joined
·
1,874 Posts
rfields4013 said:
It seems to me that all this does, is now opens the door for lobbyists to begin courting greedy politicians at the state level.
I am not a political type, so I may be missing something here, but it doesn't sound right to me. I believe the Bush administration is, and always will be, for the drilling, mining, and logging companys. I think this is just a sly way for the republicans to get into our national forests. Take for instance, this article about a land sale in Crested Butte last year.

The people of Crested Butte, CO had been fighting for 30 years to keep mining off of Mt. Emmons. Well, the BA very quietly sold 155 acres of this fought over land to a mining company for $875, under an antiquated law.
A 1/10th acre plot there sells for $100,000. If the mining company chooses to not mine, they stand to make $150,000,000 off of a $875 investment if they sell it off. Not a bad return, eh? The BA could reform this law, and bring the #'s up to date, but they are choosing not to.

Here are 2 articles that you may, or may not, be interested in reading.

http://www.forestcouncil.org/tims_picks/view.php?id=71

http://www.bettermines.org/news.cfm?newsID=1
The 1872 Mining Act regulates mining claims on federal lands. Specifically the BLM administers all mining claims even if the claim is on National Forest land. The last time anyone seriously tried to change the 1872 act was in 1995 (clinton in office), when Sec of Interior Bruce Babbit raised the issue. The clinton White House and the Democratic leadership in Congress told him to sit down and shut up -- they did not want to tackle that hot issue.

The Roadless initiative has nothing to do with the mining laws, anyway, as the 1872 act trumps the roadless policy. A mining claimant could build a road regardless of the roadless status of the land. At best the Forest Service could dictate the location and design of the road to minimize resource impacts, but could not prevent its construction.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
rapwithtom said:
Why should anybody who lives on the east coast, who's never been west of the Mississippi, have any control over how Alaskan wilderness gets managed?
Makes me think of Yellowstone National Park.

Montanans were overwhelmingly against it---would rather have had it grazing land.

Parks? Wilderness? Pfft...

NIMBY.
 

·
Log off and go ride!
Joined
·
1,874 Posts
BadHabit said:
Makes me think of Yellowstone National Park.

Montanans were overwhelmingly against it---would rather have had it grazing land.

Parks? Wilderness? Pfft...

NIMBY.
And what would be the reaction in the San Francisco Chronicle or Los Angeles Times if a group from, say, Quincy or Hayfork, CA, tried to protest or appeal a decision regarding the GGNRA or Santa Monica Mtns?

Those newspapers would go ballistic on their editorial pages that an outsider would dare to interfere in a local issue.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
9,958 Posts
dave54 said:
And what would be the reaction in the San Francisco Chronicle or Los Angeles Times if a group from, say, Quincy or Hayfork, CA, tried to protest or appeal a decision regarding the GGNRA or Santa Monica Mtns?

Those newspapers would go ballistic on their editorial pages that an outsider would dare to interfere in a local issue.
I guess it's good that Yellowstone was considered more than just a local issue, then.

Or maybe you think locals should have decided. Or local businesses?

How about the owners?
 

·
Metalheadbikerider
Joined
·
2,904 Posts
Simple...

rapwithtom said:
yeah, I'm pretty much opposed to anything that the Sierra Club is for. You hit the nail on the head with respect to users versus voters. Why should anybody who lives on the east coast, who's never been west of the Mississippi, have any control over how Alaskan wilderness gets managed?
because our wildlands are just that, OUR wildlands. They are federal lands and belong to all of us to save, protect, and enjoy.
I know people from the midwest that get WAY more use out of the wild areas in Oregon than a good percentage of the people that live here.
 
1 - 20 of 34 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top