Trail(er) trash

This sounds a little like the ski area operator here, who is actually
running an operation on government land. A neighbor doesn't want skiers and
avalanche control crews on his owned land, so the ski area operator is
getting the County to condemn it for him.

Why pay for something, when you can get it for free?

Earle

"billy ray" > wrote in message
...
> Earle,
>
> As you know I live in a small village in the center of a protected
> wilderness area.
>
> What you may not know is that every few years there are announcements of
> park expansion not by governmental seizures of private property but by the
> donations by individuals.
>
> But we are not talking about community police and fire protection we are
> discussing 'celebrities' demanding the local government buy or seize
private
> property in the center of an commercial/industrial zone. The owner is
> willing to sell and will gladly sell but the most recent offer I heard was
> less than 40% of the lands value.
>
> If Joan Baez, Darryl Hannah, Ben Harper, Laura Dern and Danny Glover were
> truly committed to the preservation of this particular walnut tree they
> would donate the monies to purchase it. Each alone could afford to do it
> even without the tax breaks they would receive.
>
> Worse yet is the local police refuse to remove, or arrest these 'stars'
> despite a court order for eviction.
>
>
>
> "Earle Horton" > wrote in message
> .. .
> > This is why we have government in the first place. I cannot afford my
own
> > police force, road crew, or annoying bureaucrats to pester my neighbors,
> > so
> > I get together with everyone else, pay taxes, and together we can buy a
> > host
> > of both good and bad things. There is, after all, a form of
> > representative
> > government in most places, so what it buys is, after a fashion, "what
> > everyone wants".
> >
> > The same argument, that you are using, could be applied to the city
parks
> > that your children or grandchildren play in, the roads that you drive on
> > or
> > the school where you learned to read. I imagine that your Hollywood
> > celebrities would like to see their tax dollars spent on something
> > worthwhile, as would we all.
> >
> > Earle
> >
> > "billy ray" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> Why is it necessary to have federally protected wilderness areas
anyway?
> >>
> >> If people or groups want to protect areas they can purchase the land
> >> themselves with their own cash.
> >>
> >> It reminds me of that 'protest' in California where all the ''movie
> >> stars'
> >> and 'recording artists' are sitting in a tree preventing a vacant lot
> >> from
> >> being improved into industrial storage.
> >>
> >> They get on TV every day saying the city should buy it and how evil the
> >> landowner is but the truth is that if they were sincere each one of
them
> > can
> >> afford individually to purchase the land outright but they 'demand'
the
> >> government buy it.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> "Mike" > wrote in message
> >> ...
> >> >
> >> > "R. Lander" > wrote in message
> >> > oups.com...
> >> >> Tom "Greening" wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> Pretty pictures you've got there but pretty much useless without
the
> >> >>> legend of what the colors actually mean.
> >> >>
> >> >> (http://www.mongabay.com/images/media/footprint.jpg)
> >> >>
> >> >> That map is useful if you want it to be.
> >> >
> >> > That exactly the point. Without any legend it can be anything you
> >> > want
> >> > it to be. I call it misleading.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > It easily debunks the claim
> >> >> that we only use 2 or 3 percent of the land. Those DARK green areas
> >> >> are
> >> >> the only lands that have barely been touched. Lighter green areas
are
> >> >> veined with roads and other intrusions. Unbroken wilderness is
always
> >> >> under more pressure.
> >> >>
> >> >> At http://nationalatlas.gov/ you can map layers of different land
> >> >> types. It's interactive so I can't post a static link. Go to
> >> >> Map-Maker,
> >> >> choose "Boundaries" and "Wilderness..." to see how sparse it is.
Check
> >> >> out the "Agriculture" zones, too. All of it disproves your mythology
> >> >> of
> >> >> endless bounty.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > I tried the above but there is no "Wilderness" check box. The only
> > one
> >> > that comes close is "Widerness Preservation System Areas". While it
> > sounds
> >> > close it is not the same thing. So the map is only showing protected
> >> > wilderness areas, not just any wilderness area. Just because a
> >> > "wilderness" area is not "protected" doesn't change the fact that it
is
> >> > still wilderness. I can see why you are so confused now. My advice is
> >> > to
> >> > forget the maps and the internet. Shut off your computer and go
outside
> > so
> >> > that you can see for yourself it's not as bad as your maps show.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>> Looking at you pretty coloring book would have us believe that
almost
> >> >>> the entire eastern US is literally covered in people. Your world
map
> > is
> >> >>> no different. What do the color graduations signify?
> >> >>
> >> >> Of course it's not literally covered with people but the land is
> >> >> highly
> >> >> appropriated. Most of the East was cleared of major forests to
> >> >> introduce agriculture. Online satellite galleries offer definitive
> >> >> proof if you don't trust maps. Then again, it's impossible to
convince
> >> >> an anthropocentric that any of it matters. All evidence will be met
> >> >> with "who cares - it's all about people and money."
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > Most of the east coast????? You make it soumd like there are
little
> > to
> >> > no trees left on the east coast. This couldn't be farther from the
> > truth.
> >> > I've hiked up and down most of the east coast in forested areas. Most
> > were
> >> > labled wilderness or wildlife areas. I've personally been there so I
> > know
> >> > they exist. Funny thing is they don't show up on your map.You really
> > need
> >> > to get outside more so you can see things for yourself.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >>> Let's take India for example, you CAN pick it out without resorting
> >> >>> to
> > a
> >> >>> world atlas can't you?
> >> >>
> >> >> I'm the uneducated one around here? An error like "75 million"
(below)
> >> >> shows that population/land-use is not something you think about
much.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Based on colors alone one might believe that
> >> >>> India is absolutely covered in humanity, and population numbers
might
> >> >>> lead you to think the same thing. After all, their population is
> > right
> >> >>> on a par with China at around 2 billion souls, give or take a few
> >> >>> hundred million. The thing is, I've BEEN to India and I've seen a
> > fair
> >> >>> portion of it, and while the cities themselves can be absolutely
> >> >>> crawling with people, the biggest hunk of the country is pretty
much
> >> >>> free of significant numbers of them.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's because much of it is used to grow crops to feed them, and
much
> >> >> is desert or high mountains. They also don't have the consumption
> >> >> footprint of the average American (but they're working on it,
> >> >> unfortunately). People have taken over just about all land that
offers
> >> >> easy living and ample water. When land is truly empty it's usually
for
> >> >> lack of water or harsh climate and terrain.
> >> >>
> >> >> This is what's really happening in India:
> >> >> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/cabs/indiaenv.html
> >> >>
> >> >> "India's ongoing population explosion has placed great strain on the
> >> >> country's environment. This rapidly growing population, along with a
> >> >> move toward urbanization and industrialization, has placed
significant
> >> >> pressure on India's infrastructure and its natural resources.
> >> >> Deforestation, soil erosion, water pollution and land degradation
> >> >> continue to worsen and are hindering economic development in rural
> >> >> India, while the rapid industrialization and urbanization in India's
> >> >> booming metropolises are straining the limits of municipal services
> >> >> and
> >> >> causing serious air pollution problems."
> >> >>
> >> >>> The US is approximately 3.5 million square miles with a population
of
> >> >>> approximately 75 million people which works out to about 78 people
> >> >>> per
> >> >>> square mile.
> >> >>
> >> >> 75 million was surpassed back in the 1890s! The U.S. population will
> >> >> reach 300 million by 2007, with ~3 million added annually
> >> >> (census.gov).
> >> >> Average density matters less than the type of land and how many
> >> >> resources are taken from it. Many areas are already overburdened and
> >> >> must draw water and food from great distances. That's why you keep
> >> >> seeing news about water shortages, fishery declines and old growth
> >> >> facing the axe. Go ahead, pretend none of it matters. It would fit
> >> >> right in with your general myopia.
> >> >>
> >> >>> A fair number of those are actually concentrated in the
> >> >>> major cities so that makes their density greater, but the density
of
> > the
> >> >>> rest of the country less. I'm betting a fairly substantial portion
> >> >>> of
> >> >>> the city folk never get any closer to nature than the zoo and local
> >> >>> water park, so their impact on the environment is minimal, not
> > counting
> >> >>> the emissions from their mini-vans.
> >> >>
> >> >> Again, it takes a lot of land to support city infrastructure. Over
90%
> >> >> of U.S. forests have been worked over to that end. Agriculture
> >> >> occupies
> >> >> huge swaths of land. People keep wanting more of what's left for
> >> >> recreation and blaming everyone but themselves for crowds therein.
> >> >>
> >> >>> Their indirect impact based on resources used in their behalf and
> >> >>> what-not might be a bit harder to judge, but unless you're willing
to
> > be
> >> >>> the first in line to be euthanized to minimize the impact to poor
> > mother
> >> >>> earth I'd suggest you shut up about population issues.
> >> >>
> >> >> Have you ever heard of birth control? Every time this issue is
bought
> >> >> up, some high-school dropout/Catholic assumes population control
means
> >> >> genocide.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > So tell everyone just how you would implement such a plan ? Who
would
> >> > control such a thing ? How would you determine how many chidren one
is
> >> > allowed ? It just sounds like such a dumb assed idea.
> >> >
> >> >
> >> >
> >> > You cited the U.S. population at a quarter of its actual
> >> >> size. How many other facets of this issue don't you understand?
> >> >>
> >> >>> There are about 4 million miles of roads in the US. For the sake
of
> >> >>> argument lets say 1 mile of road for every square mile of real
estate
> > in
> >> >>> the country. If you laid them all end to end and side by
> >> >>> side...well,
> >> >>> you should get the picture. A road isn't all that wide compared to
a
> >> >>> mile of real estate is it? I'd guess the real estate is about,
ohhh,
> >> >>> 5,200 feet and change wider. IOW the overall impact of a road, on
> >> >>> the
> >> >>> land, is pretty negligible.
> >> >>
> >> >> Roads are significant because they bring more impact and break the
> >> >> land
> >> >> into smaller sectors. Once you build a road (paved or dirt) an area
is
> >> >> never the same. Millions of dead animals don't appreciate them,
> >> >> either.
> >> >> I don't want to abolish roads but I'd like to see an end to new
> >> >> construction. We might actually have time to fix potholes.
> >> >>
> >> >>> And besides which, what is your point? Do you seriously think
there
> > is
> >> >>> anything, short of total global sterilization, that man can do to
> >> >>> this
> >> >>> planet that is going to make any kind of lasting impact? Man, and
> >> >>> whatever impact we might have is going to be less than blip on the
> > radar
> >> >>> that is the life cycle of this planet.
> >> >>
> >> >> That's another bogus argument (we can't destroy the whole thing,
> >> >> therefore we're harmless). Man-made damage is extensive compared to
> >> >> what once existed in terms of pristine land, now-extinct species and
a
> >> >> lack of pollution. If you keep lowering the bar for acceptable
damage,
> >> >> you can excuse almost anything.
> >> >>
> >> >> R. Lander
> >> >>
> >> >
> >> >
> >>
> >>
> >
> >
> >
> > --
> > Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com
> >
>
>



--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

"R. Lander" wrote:
>
> The "respect" for nature shown by offroad enthusiasts is documented by
> all the cans, bottles and wrappers they toss on scenic trails. The
> Rubicon near Lake Tahoe shows how these anthropocentric mouth-breathers
> view the land. They can't be bothered carrying a trash bag and packing
> it out. No room in the Jeep or some other excuse.

Actually, some of the worst places for trash are in wilderness areas,
where the backpackers can't be bothered to carry out a few extra pounds.

Many years ago, I worked for a guy who used to fly his float plane into
some of the alpine lakes around Snoqualmie Pass. He would meet some
people doing trail maintenance (usually a Boy Scout troop) and fly
hundreds of pounds of garbage out. Other than float planes, this area
was inaccessible to vehicular traffic. Then, they converted it to a
wilderness area. No more float planes allowed. Now, the area is like a
cesspool/garbage dump.


--
Paul Hovnanian
------------------------------------------------------------------
Senior staff curmudgeon.