[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

[pct-l] Re: Defiant rancher once more loses grazing case, maynow go to jail

We were a very different country 100 years ago - a lot less people, no ATVs, no
giardia in our water, a sense that wilderness was bottomless (and must be

Of course these issues are value judgments. My personal apple is that I'd like
to see some significant chunks of land set aside as foot access only wilderness.

The difference is that like a mining or logging company, the rancher wants to
make exclusive use of public lands to make a private living. Often without
remediating any damage (depreciation of asset) done by that use. Parks are
accessible by all the public (in theory) for our common use and enjoyment.

I'm not keen on use fees, but I'm willing to pay them if the $$ stay where paid.
I can't do trail maintenance or volunteer usually, so my $$ substitute.


"Reynolds, WT" wrote:

> Elizabeth,
> A difference between parks and profit? Is there? For a hundred years it was
> open range in America. Citizens could do whatever they wanted on public
> lands. Remember the cattle versus sheep wars of about 100 years ago?
> Parks versus Profit a value judgement -- a judgement that recreation and
> parks are a worthy use for public land while profit is not a worth use. I
> agree and I am sure most of this list does also. That rancher does not. Why
> should you, or I get to make that value judgement instead of him? The
> rancher says everybody free. It is not apples and oranges to him.
> OK, now enter the couch potato. His value judgment is that everybody pays.
> Parks, recreation, profit, whatever --- everybody pays. Them that don't use
> don't pay. Simple. Its not apples and oranges to him. That is his value
> judgement and he is in the majority.
> Virtually all the grazing, packer, mountain bike, ORV, hiker issues are
> value judgements. Each proponent sees his apple as more important that the
> other guys orange while the vast majority of Americans don't care.
> As a thruhiker I want to walk on 2700 miles of land that is not mine. The
> land is immensely valuable I want it to stay relatively undeveloped but
> accessable to me. If I take the attitude that this wonderfull experience is
> a privilige and not a right I will walk a lot farther.
> Tom
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Elizabeth A. Foshion [mailto:foshione@dteenergy.com]
> Sent: Monday, November 20, 2000 7:22 AM
> To: pct-l@edina.hack.net
> Subject: [pct-l] Re: Defiant rancher once more loses grazing case, may
> now go to jail
> There is a difference between using public land for recreation (parks, etc.)
> and using
> public land to generate personal profit (rancher) - this is arguing apples &
> oranges.
> Katt
> * From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

* From the PCT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

To:            "'Elizabeth A. Foshion'" <foshione@dteenergy.com>, "Reynolds, WT" <reynolds@ilan.com>
Cc:            pct-l@edina.hack.net