[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ft-l] Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
This is ridiculous! The government would never obtain an adequate price for
the land. Our challenge is to demand then expect the public land to pay for
itself. Besides forestry companies will lock every gate on and off their
lands. Then where will the 4x riders go? Where will the rainbow people
gather? ...your favorite state park.
----- Original Message -----
From: "Erskine Fincher" <fincher2@nettally.com>
To: <ft-l@mailman.backcountry.net>
Sent: Friday, September 13, 2002 10:45 AM
Subject: Re: [ft-l] Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
The best solution would be to sell off the public lands, and put them into
private hands. Land use shouldn't be decided by who has the most 'political
pull', it should be decided according to what is the most productive,
long-term use for the land. Government agencies cannot make good economic
decisions, because they are controlled by politicians. They can't ignore
the political consequences of the decisions that they make-- politics
trumps economics every time. This is true regardless of whether the
political pull is being exercised by corporations getting a hidden subsidy
at taxpayer expense, or radical environmentalists urging irrational land
use policies due to a primitivist ideology.
At 08:55 AM 9/13/2002 -0400, you wrote:
> David's view is a righteous one, with us (the good recreational
guys)
>against them (the bad corporate evil doers). This is a misguided view.
>It is easy to blame someone else for our problems. It is more difficult
>to recognize ourselves as the problem. Each one of us takes from the
>forest. But few of us offer effective support for the forest. Hunters
>are one recreational group that does "pay it's way" with the various
>fees and licenses purchased. Generally, hikers, campers, horse riders,
>bicyclists, runners, etc do not.
> Forest products companies bid for the lumber resources and the
agency
>(state or federal) can pick the best bid. If the bids are to low, they
>are not under any obligation to accept any of them. However, they do
>accept a bid, even if it seems too low. Why? Because it is a source of
>revenue that can be used to operate the forest. If the agencies had
>sufficient sources of revenue from recreational users, they would not
>have to accept inadequate bids for the forest products. In addition, if
>most of the agencies' funding came from recreational user sources, the
>recreational user groups would have a bigger political "pull" with the
>agencies.
> It is time for all of us (even David) to recognize that WE are the
>problem with inadequate funding of the forests. We want to "call the
>shots", but we don't want to ante up the entry price (I know this is a
>mixed metaphor but it seems appropriate) that would give us an effective
>voice in affecting forest management policy.
> I reject David's righteous lecture as being totally misguided and
>distracting us from the resolution of the problem.
> This is again, my not-so-humble-opinion.
>- Carl Strohmenger
>Woods walker, Nature lover, and Realist aware of the world around me!
>
>David L Rohe/NONFS/USDAFS wrote:
> >
> > Carl,
> > The difference between you, I or any other private citizen using
the
> > FS infrastructure is we are not taking more from the land. When you use
> > these roads to get to a place for bird watching, it is no different than
> > any other road you used coming from your house. Upon using these roads
you
> > take memories, pictures, and notes about the birds and their
surroundings.
> > Big business on the other hand also uses the roads, but then take the
> > surroundings (ie. trees) from the birds, from us, and from my kids who
will
> > not then have the opportunity to take pictures or create memories. I've
> > worked in corporate America. Many of those in charge in the corporate
> > world are focused on their bottom line. It is their job to do so. It
is
> > our job to keep them in check, when their own concious does not. State
> > Forests are public land, and citizens are welcome. Perhaps we should
set a
> > better example and pay the nominal fees when they apply, perhaps we
won't.
> > I do know, however that we are not taking natural resources from the
> > Forests, nor are we asking for more infrastructure to be put in.
Corporate
> > America, doesn't always have that position.
> > If I have in anyway misinterpreted the thoughts or points given
> > before, please take time to clarify or restate the point. These are my
> > thoughts on the matter.
> > Dave Rohe
> > T.C.C. for the FNST/FTA
> >
> > Carl Strohmenger
> > <cstrohme@hsc.usf.edu> To:
> ft-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> > Sent by: cc:
> > ft-l-admin@mailman.backc Subject: [ft-l]
> Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
> > ountry.net
> >
> > 09/12/2002 03:38 PM
> > Please respond to ft-l
> >
> > It sure is popular to bash corporate America these days.
> > However, in
> > fairness, I must confess that I, also, have made use of the
> > infrastructure put in place by the various forest services.
> > I admit that I have never paid a user fee to make use of the
> > forest
> > roads or walk beneath the canopy of long-leaf pines in the state forest.
> > Occasionally, I have paid an entry fee to a State Park, but never to a
> > State Forest. I don't pay a fee to drive my pick-up truck into Croom WMA
> > or to travel through the Ocala NF. I might pay a campsite fee to use a
> > site at Alexander, but I don't pay to go birdwatching.
> > I think all of us make use of at least some of the
> > infrastructure
> > without making additional payment for it's use.
> >
> > This is just, of course, my not-so-humble-opinion.
> >
> > - Carl
> > (wearing my asbestos, flame-proof birdwatching duds)
> >
> > ATRerunner wrote:
> > >
> > > Cricket correctly notes that the timber co.'s make
> > > money by using the infrastructure so generously paid
> > > for by we the people. I think the genesis of this
> > > inequity is to be found tangled in the real motives
> > > and allegiance of Gifford Pinchot. Consider that the
> > > father of the Forest Service was a member of the Order
> > > of Skull & Bones in his senior year at Yale. A Google
> > > search of just that connection will turn up names of
> > > fellow S & B members whose companies/families had
> > > great profit from forest land, e.g., Weyerhauser.
> > > Where did G.P.'s heart really lay? With the land or
> > > with the profit therefrom? Whose ideas were Gifford
> > > and Teddy implementing? Oh my, OT Again. Back to the
> > > Swamp go I.
> > >
> > > =====
> > > ATRerunner
> > >
> > > __________________________________________________
> > > Do you Yahoo!?
> > > Yahoo! News - Today's headlines
> > > http://news.yahoo.com
> > > _______________________________________________
> > > FT-L mailing list
> > > FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l
> > _______________________________________________
> > FT-L mailing list
> > FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > FT-L mailing list
> > FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
> > http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l
>_______________________________________________
>FT-L mailing list
>FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
>http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l
"The noble soul has reverence for itself." -- Friedrich Nietzsche
Erskine Fincher
fincher2@nettally.com
_______________________________________________
FT-L mailing list
FT-L@mailman.backcountry.net
http://mailman.backcountry.net/mailman/listinfo/ft-l