Vote Yes and Do Your Part of Telling Weenies Where to Put it!!!

[TacoXpo]

This is a WSJ poll - I don't know how many times you have seen 'public' trails close but I have seen quite a few of BLM trails closed. I say open 'em up! And I am a backpacker that has seen more pristine locations than these legislative type will ever see - outside of the helo tour! :mad:

VOTE YES!!!

http://online.wsj.com/community/groups/question-day-229/topics/should-40-million-acres-land

 

[Mauzer]

Done, over 50% when I voted said Yes

 

[Oswego]

Yup. Still over 50% want to rape and pillage what little land we have left. The Yay's need to take a trip to NJ and then they might vote differently.

 

[TacoXpo]

Yup. Still over 50% want to rape and pillage what little land we have left. The Yay's need to take a trip to NJ and then they might vote differently.

Wow! You have no fucking idea of some of the land out here. Having come from NJ. I feel for you but once again, you have no fucking idea. The land we are talking about isn't Ester's farm. You would be lucky to survive a day out there.

But this is the typical shit where people living in their little bit of hell want to push their local problems on others that don't have the same hell. Look at all the Easterners that are pushing for half of Utah to be closed to bikers, mountain bikes and 4x4. They attempt to do that nearly every year and try not to look at the use by the local people. But oh well.

That is all!

 

[TacoXpo]

I still say give NJ to the people of Israel and settle that debate!

 

[SecretSquirrel]

I still say give NJ to the people of Israel and settle that debate!

Israel wouldn't want it.

Boyd needs to read up the the bill though...

 

[TacoXpo]

Israel wouldn't want it.

Boyd needs to read up the the bill though...

Or buy a Prius and move to Massachusetts!!

 

[Oswego]

I still say give NJ to the people of Israel and settle that debate!

Well we do have the fifth largest amount of illegal imigrants.....so screw it. Just let me get out then you can do what you want with it.

Israel wouldn't want it.

Boyd needs to read up the the bill though...

I read the info on it in the link. Why would you want to get rid of protection for the land? Coming from NJ I have yet to see any major industry "help" the environment. The town I grew up in was literally poisoned by RCA many moons ago & the lake down the street from my house (we had well water) was on of the 10 most toxic sites in NJ. I'm just not for any further deterioration of our lands until they learn how to use the laws on the books now. If companies or the gov were actually responsible I would say "hell yea - go for it". We all truly know the public's safety and environmental impact comes down to the bean counters and corporations....or at least around here it does.

 

[Silverback]

Voted yes.

 

[SecretSquirrel]

Well we do have the fifth largest amount of illegal imigrants.....so screw it. Just let me get out then you can do what you want with it.



I read the info on it in the link. Why would you want to get rid of protection for the land? Coming from NJ I have yet to see any major industry "help" the environment. The town I grew up in was literally poisoned by RCA many moons ago & the lake down the street from my house (we had well water) was on of the 10 most toxic sites in NJ. I'm just not for any further deterioration of our lands until they learn how to use the laws on the books now. If companies or the gov were actually responsible I would say "hell yea - go for it". We all truly know the public's safety and environmental impact comes down to the bean counters and corporations....or at least around here it does.

From GovTrack:
http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1581&tab=summary
4/15/2011--Introduced.
Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011 - Releases public lands administered by the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 that have not been designated as wilderness and identified by BLM as not suitable for designation as wilderness from further study for wilderness designation. Makes such lands no longer subject to the Act's requirement pertaining to the management of wilderness study areas in a manner that does not impair suitability for preservation as wilderness. Releases inventoried roadless areas within the National Forest System that have not been designated as wilderness and were not recommended for designation as wilderness as a result of the second roadless area review and evaluation program (RARE II) or the subsequent revision of a land resource management plan, from further study for wilderness designation. Makes such System lands no longer subject to management to maintain roadless character and values and to comply with other land-use restrictions of the Roadless Area Conservation Rule, as amended by the Roadless Area Conservation Final Rule (2001) and the State Petitions for Inventoried Roadless Area Management Final Rule (2005).

ARRA's position: http://www.arra-access.com/site/PageServer?pagename=arra_washingtonnewsletter_aug2011
H.R. 1581
On July 26th, the House Natural Resources Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands held a rather lengthy hearing on H. R. 1581, the Wilderness and Roadless Area Release Act of 2011. Thirteen witnesses testified at the hearing. Among those testifying in favor were Dan Kleen, President of the National Off-Highway Vehicle Conservation Council, Chris Horgan, Executive Director of the Stewards of the Sequoia and Melissa Simpson, Director of Governmental Affairs, Safari International. One of those testifying against the legislation was former Secretary of the Interior, Bruce Babbitt.
The hearing focused sharp attention on the absurdity of locking up over 42 million acres of federal land classified as Wilderness Study Areas (WSAs) and Inventoried Roadless Areas (IRAs) even though the Bureau of Land Management and the U.S. Forest Service long ago determined that these areas did not qualify for designation as Wilderness Areas. A group of environmentalists showed up at the hearing sporting badges with the message "Ban the Great American Giveaway." That may be a cute slogan but it is totally misleading because even if these areas are no longer considered WSAs and IRAs, other federal laws set limits on how management plans can be prepared for these lands.
Our hope, of course, is that many of these areas would be opened up to recreation. Even though that is not an absolute given, there would be an opportunity for local input to federal land managers on how these federal lands should be managed for the benefit of local communities, something that does not now exist.

 

[REX_BMET]

too much reading, I just voted yes

 

[tx_shooter]

51.1% said yes when I voted. I'm thinking that unless the land is a park, military base, or key to the national defense the government should GTFO and let it go back to private ownership. Then the owners could pay taxes on it and the government would have a little more income coming in and less expenses going out. That makes sense... they will probably have me killed now.


... must watch out for the laser dot...

 

[AlienXtx]

Yes 52.7%

 

[TacoXpo]

51.1% said yes when I voted. I'm thinking that unless the land is a park, military base, or key to the national defense the government should GTFO and let it go back to private ownership. Then the owners could pay taxes on it and the government would have a little more income coming in and less expenses going out. That makes sense... they will probably have me killed now.


... must watch out for the laser dot...

Watch out for what?

 

[TacoXpo]

Okay I will put it in clear English:

I am a guy that regularly picks up everyone else's trash, beer cans and yes, used toilet paper.

I carry every shit stained piece of toilet paper I make out with me! I bury my shit at least 18" deep if there is loamy soil - or - I take it out with me.

I go backpacking about 4-10 time a year. On occasions, I've carried more crap out of the trails than the weight of my pack. I go to these places that people who pen these bills have never and will never go to. I have spent more time picking up trash in the desert and local woods and removed more graffiti than more than half of the people on this board. These people that write these things want a pat on the back from the PACs that they collect money from. They are mostly full of shit and other than the helo tour that's paid by some of their 'friends,' they will never see, let alone stand on these Protected Lands.

The bill that we are talking about is a fucking farce. It has everything to do with making names for politicians that don't even live in the subject states by locking up land and making it a crime to use it.

It would be very similar to decide to sell 8 states the size of New Jersey to China!; With visitation rights providing you have the right permit (takes years to obtain) and you visit by foot or Presidential Helo.

Believe it or not, the pollution that you speak of would not happen today (I know you can give me small anecdotal evidence) for many reasons including most of the 'pollutants' are more valuable captured then let go. This combined with the over abundant lookers on that want everyone to fail - I would like to see the same that RCA and others committed in the 50s, 60s and 70s. This is also why most every parts store is willing to take care of your used oil while dealers will even charge you and then sell it to the used oil guy.

Amongst other things, this bill and others like it will:

- allow you to keep sending money out of this county to get the energy to charge your Prius
- allow lumber to rot or burn
- allow the US to go to China and other 'partners' o) for our resource needs
- allow us all to have vacations at the commercial places that suck your money out of your wallet - I'm all for that too since I am a capitalist since it is what keeps this country strong... oops I meant kept it strong.

Fortunately for me I will be dead before China invades the fractional countries that will occupy what is now the United States.

 

[TacoXpo]

I hate to say it but it reminds me of this video:

[video=youtube;ZBhsihCMaoo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZBhsihCMaoo[/video]

 

[bakerla]

Too much seriousness in here

 

[Silverback]

Naaa.. I just don't want the tree huggin, birkenstock wearing, coffee barista losers of the world to win. This will allow them to take their 15 year old Subaru's into the wilds and they can be one with nature... I'm surprised they are not for it.

If you never want to wheel again except on private land (which is how we roll in Tejas.. and it blows) then shut the fuck up and don't vote. But if you have an ounce of adventure in your bloodstream and want to experience some truly dangerous or at least adventurous land.. vote yes. I don't think they are intending to build a mercury plant in the middle of the redwood forest and have its toxic waste dumped all over the tallest living things in the world.

 

[TacoXpo]

Naaa.. I just don't want the tree huggin, birkenstock wearing, coffee barista losers of the world to win. This will allow them to take their 15 year old Subaru's into the wilds and they can be one with nature... I'm surprised they are not for it.

One more snipet for when you 'stump' - Tree stump that is!!!

 

[Silverback]

usually when I stump its cause I tripped and hit some junk on something.. hurts like hell!