Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast
Results 1 to 25 of 34
  1. #1
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rfields4013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    395

    Bush administration strikes again


  2. #2
    I do small drops.
    Reputation: bikescars101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    215
    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?
    "Sorry." John Belushi, Animal House

  3. #3
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    40
    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.
    Vance in AK.

  4. #4
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,659
    Get off the soap box ya yahoo!

  5. #5
    mtbr member
    Reputation: Rev Bubba's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,923

    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.

  6. #6
    mtbr member
    Reputation: stevenfallover's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    105
    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.

  7. #7
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pacman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,926
    Quote Originally Posted by bikescars101
    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?

  8. #8
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    942
    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?

  9. #9
    Vegan Athlete
    Reputation: vuduvgn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,088
    It's all about us and them. F*ck them and let's get what is owed to us!!!!
    Let's hear the battle cry of the entitled!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
    Take a look at and consider "liking" my Vegan Athlete Facebook page.

  10. #10
    Preemptive Revenger
    Reputation: rapwithtom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by voodoovegan
    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.
    Friends don't let friends give their money to NORBA.
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  11. #11
    Preemptive Revenger
    Reputation: rapwithtom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    868

    Score One for the Good Guys!

    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.
    Friends don't let friends give their money to NORBA.
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  12. #12
    Preemptive Revenger
    Reputation: rapwithtom's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    868
    Quote Originally Posted by stevenfallover
    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?
    Friends don't let friends give their money to NORBA.
    Get a bicycle. You will not regret it. If you live. - Mark Twain

  13. #13
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    54
    Quote Originally Posted by rapwithtom
    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
    2004 Specialized Stumpjumper M4, Fox Float RLT 100, Propedal.

  14. #14
    mtbr member
    Reputation: rfields4013's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Posts
    395
    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

  15. #15
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,510

    Wrong!

    Quote Originally Posted by rapwithtom
    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.
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  16. #16
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by rfields4013
    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.

  17. #17
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by rapwithtom
    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.

  18. #18
    Log off and go ride!
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    942
    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    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.

  19. #19
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    9,937
    Quote Originally Posted by dave54
    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?

  20. #20
    Metalheadbikerider
    Reputation: free-agent's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    2,510

    Simple...

    Quote Originally Posted by rapwithtom
    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.
    Support mtb'ing in the Portland area, join NWTA with your dollars, hands, and/or voice. nw-trail.org

  21. #21
    mtbr member
    Reputation: pacman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    3,926

    They're all the same

    Quote Originally Posted by rfields4013
    It seems to me that all this does, is now opens the door for lobbyists to begin courting greedy politicians at the state level.
    But why did Clinton keep the door open for 7 years 11 months and 23 days? Answer: His party collected from the lobbyists. Did you hear of Marc Rich, pardon for cash?

  22. #22
    post-ride specialist
    Reputation: icegeek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Posts
    4,012
    Quote Originally Posted by stevenfallover
    the enviro-nazi's want EVERYBODY out of the forest. ....
    Oh god, let's keep it away from THEM! Lets, fence it around and cut it ALL DOWN before those envirowhackos get it and do something like... uh... like leave it there for us.

  23. #23
    I do small drops.
    Reputation: bikescars101's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    215
    So as for what I previously said, I thought both candidates were complete morons, but after listening to the debates, I decided to support the one who was more set in his ways, and yes, more intelligent. That's why I "liked" Bush. That said, I don't think either one was going to be any good for the environment. I think the only president who could possibly please all of the needs I ever desire is me. And that still probably wouldn't happen!

    I'm a pretty well-rounded forest man. I'm a hiker, biker, 4-wheeler, pretty much you name it and I'll have some interest in it, and I just think the last thing on my interest list would be tearing apart what little forest we have left.
    "Sorry." John Belushi, Animal House

  24. #24
    mtbr member
    Reputation:
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    393
    Quote Originally Posted by free-agent
    . 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.
    it's not clear at all to me what the majority of people want. it is clear to me what the minority of volvo-driving anti-wheel granola-eating liberal kooks want though. they want policy dictated nationally to kick everyone else out of the woods rather than using the existing NEPA process and involving local communities, the agencies (blm, usfs), scientists, etc to decide what is the most reasonable mix of protection, recreation, development, etc...

    i think clinton's original roadless policy was a shameful display of unamerican anti-democracy. i think bush is a complete loser, but i support rescinding clinton's ill-considered 1-size-fits-all blatant pandering to the elitist anti-wheel kooks.
    mw
    mark weaver
    kuna, id

  25. #25
    mtbr member
    Reputation: dir-T's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    1,298

    What?

    Quote Originally Posted by BadHabit
    Makes me think of Yellowstone National Park.
    Montanans were overwhelmingly against it---would rather have had it grazing land.
    .
    Where did you hear that BS? While I'm no rancher I've never heard of it and it doesn't make any sense. First of all Y-stone is mostly in Wyoming and except for a relatively small amount of developed land around the park and in the rest of the state Montana has LOTS of suitable grazing land that's either in private ranches or Nat'l Forest lands. Maybe people are against predators and supposedly diseased buffalo interfering with grazing outside the park but I've never heard any suggestion that the park should be used for grazing. Maybe there was some grumbling when the park was established but even then (over 125 years ago) Montana was still being settled and there was plenty of land around that was easier to graze (less harsh winters, no thermal areas, less predators, etc).

    The only complaint I've ever heard about the park from those living close to it has to do with the summer time traffic it brings here. F--ing RVs blocking up the narrow roads etc.

Page 1 of 2 1 2 LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •