PDA

View Full Version : another interesting site



MountainJeep
December 30th, 2003, 02:13 AM
This is a tough issue for me for I feel that more federal land should be set aside as wilderness and preserved for the future. At the same time I also feel that most federal land should be open for multi-use to include recreation and commercial usage such as mining and forestry.

Its a tough balance to achieve and I believe each proposal stands alone for consideration.

I do not necessarily oppose what the Colorado Wilderness Network is trying to achieve in the preservation of a few "pristine" areas. I do not however support any goal of turning federal lands in Colorado into one large wilderness area.

I would think that with the acreage we currently have designated under Wilderness Protection that these groups may be better focused on reclaiming some of the areas east of the Mississippi. An area doesnt need to have mountainous vistas or deep canyons to warrant wilderness protection.

blah blah blah...

Red_Chili
December 30th, 2003, 03:26 AM
This is a tough issue for me for I feel that more federal land should be set aside as wilderness and preserved for the future. At the same time I also feel that most federal land should be open for multi-use to include recreation and commercial usage such as mining and forestry.
I think your conundrum is more a result of the very few options we have in 'the system' rather than a real land use conundrum. It amounts to "wide open" versus "locked up tight". Neither is very good IMHO. How about what BRC suggests, "Back Country Designation"? Open for recreation but carefully managed and not open for corporate rape?

IMHO, when I look at Colorado maps, I see HUGE tracts of wilderness where in all likelihood I will never go (probably the very goal of the ultragreens). We don't need more. But we don't need less wildlands. The public equates "wildlands" with "Capital 'W' Wilderness" and never carries the thought out to its ramifications.

That is a real problem.

vb
December 30th, 2003, 06:13 AM
http://www.wilderness.net/

for those interested in how others operate and function

http://www.cowildernessnetwork.org/

if you chose to go to this one , click on the businesses, community organizations, and local governments link. if you go to ft collins notice that new belgion is a supporter. scroll the all the supporters for that matter. interesting who does not want the public to use public lands for anything other the viewing from afar.
can we get this type of backing?????


wow went to the bottom of the supporters page and find citys and counties that support this

[ December 30, 2003, 12:34 AM: Message edited by: vb ]

Mcstiff
December 30th, 2003, 12:02 PM
Can we start a Sticky of CO's who support the closing of land? Along with contact info so that they know people will not be using their products because of the affiliation.

vb
December 30th, 2003, 12:59 PM
thanks mcstiff!!!!!!!!! id like to ask our resident legal duds (see what happens when you leave out just one letter like an e)or at least have them pm eric.

Willie G
January 2nd, 2004, 02:53 AM
A couple of thoughts:

A lot of businesses (and individuals) will give money to an organization when they are asked simply out of a desire to be charitable, to give to a "worthy" cause. They may not know, or care, what the organization actually does. They simply give to make themselves feel better or for the tax considerations of a donation to "charity".

Now, giving money away is a sure-fire way to get put on the list of donors for all to see, as in this case. But I'd be cautious about "blacklisting" anyone just because they are on that list - they might be willing to give you/us money, too. I'd also point out that only one donation will get you on a list, that's a big difference in being an annual supporter for twenty years.