[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[ft-l] Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
- Subject: [ft-l] Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
- From: email@example.com (David L Rohe/NONFS/USDAFS)
- Date: Fri, 13 Sep 2002 14:22:55 -0400
I'd like to make it clear that my response earlier was as a volunteer, not
in my capacity of TCC. Carl has some very good points. Hunters do pay
their way. There is no reason why we can't do the same. In my opinion
("my" underlined), the non-hunting contingent that Carl pointed out should
always be paying their way, just like the hunters. But it does not change
the fact that when I go into the woods hiking, I don't take out hundreds of
trees. Let me clarify that logging to a certain extent is necessary, but
it should be done responsibly. The agencies responsible for public lands
contract out to the best bidder. This does not mean that they can not do
an exceptional job of ensuring that the contract is responsible for
conservation versus profit. During the Apollo program, NASA often
contracted out to the lowest bidder. They made it to the moon and back 6
times. I feel we (that is the American people not hikers) should hold
these policies to that same standard. And Carl is right. We must also
take responsibility as well. I'm going to do my part. I will pay the fees
that are set down for the activities that I do. I will continue to
volunteer so that those activities expenses are limited for the agencies.
I believe that although big business is not solely to blame, they can
shoulder a percentage of the responsibility equal to the resources and
funds they receive.
And Carl, I reject that you called my previous post misguided and
distracting. Great deeds are done when one reaches beyond "the real world"
and attempts to accomplish what was previously unobtained. Dreamers are
often the harbingers of change.
Once again. I respect everyones' opinions on the matter. Especially
Carls, as he stirs us to be greater than before.
David "Stetson" Rohe
<firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com
Sent by: cc:
firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: [ft-l] Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's
ountry.net ... ]
09/13/2002 08:55 AM
Please respond to ft-l
David's view is a righteous one, with us (the good recreational
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
(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
It is time for all of us (even David) to recognize that WE are
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
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:
> 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
> take memories, pictures, and notes about the birds and their
> 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
> 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
> better example and pay the nominal fees when they apply, perhaps we
> 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.
> 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
> <email@example.com> To:
> Sent by: cc:
> firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: [ft-l]
Use of infrastructure - [was President's Bush's ... ]
> 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
> 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
> 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 mailing list
FT-L mailing list