I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our
wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

--riverman

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!
"riverman" wrote in message
...
I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our
wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

--riverman

riverman wrote:

I mean it. Four more years of President Bush could mean a lot of our
wilderness gets opened up to development and timber harvesting. I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

--riverman



You said it. This summer, I went up to the Redwoods in an effort to show
my son what the forests were like once. They are so seriously depleted
that my sister said, "I can't bear to go up there any more, it's so
terrible." Did stop her from voting for Bush, sadly.

If you care about the environment, look now. It will exist only on film
in a few years.

Ruefully,

Rick

On 04 Nov 2004 02:21:20 GMT, pchuck (socemdog) wrote:

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.
Robin

Socemdog

http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

The environment was a non-issue this time. There was almost no
mention of it in the debates. All I heard from the enviromental
organizations I follow, was, vote for the enviroment. Not- vote for x
or y because of his stand on the environment.

I hate to admit it, but most of America does not care a bit about
environmental issues.

Now that I think about it, that may be the only area where we agree
with rest of the third world- slash and burn now! I can not imagine
North Korea would have any different policies than Gee Dub in that
regard.

Or in a few other areas, too.

(wait a sec, let me find those flame proof undies)


-Dan V.
feeling slightly nauseous right now.


On Wed, 3 Nov 2004 21:14:00 -0600, "Felsenmeer"
wrote:

this year's trip to Sylvania Wilderness (Upper MI) included seeing a
couple
of moter boats for the first time thanks to a conservative judge's
ruling...got me to vote Dems across the board for the first time...I hate
what's happening!

Same here... had to dodge powerboats whilst canoeing across crossing Crooked
Lake. What scares me more than Bush getting re-elected is that it looks
like the country in general has swung even further to the right. It's one
thing if the president doesn't give a **** about the environment; it's
something altogether different (and *much* worse) when the president AND the
electorate don't care.

Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.

Many "green" issues come down to use and access. Notice the first one mentioned
here was motors, which is more of an issue of personal preference than one of
the environment. Although one can argue that this is higher impact than non
motorized use, on lakes and rivers I not really sure that the issue is that
much in your favor.

I've argued for years that many of the "Green" organizations have focused on
their support, often blindly, to one party and at the national level. Well, now
they
have lost again, can even complain about the election being stolen this time,
and wonder why they aren't being included in the decision making.

I would take a deep breath, relax, and start looking at the individual issues.
SYOTR
Larry C.

"riverman" ) writes:

.... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle.

The principle threat to "wilderness" is all the paddlers and backpackers
scaring away the wildlife. I wonder why people don't stay at home to
paddle and hike. It's a fact that most people in North Amercia live in
cities and most cities are located on the shores of lakes and rivers. If
you want a pleasant place to paddle amd hike then get your city to clean
up the shoreline. If you are real wilderness enthusiasts you would stick
to your own backyard instead of ignoring it to drive long distances to
paddle in places where you contribute to the loss of wilderness. I have
paddled all afternoon within the City Of Ottawa on a weekday and not met
another person while on the saem afternoon there are traffic jams on the
portages in Algonquin Park's "wilderness".

As far as I'm concerned if you look up and see vapour trails it's not
wilderness.

--
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
William R Watt National Capital FreeNet Ottawa's free community network
homepage: www.ncf.ca/~ag384/top.htm
warning: non-FreeNet email must have "notspam" in subject or it's returned

"Larry Cable" wrote in message
...
Hey, Myron,

I would really appreciate it if someone could tell me specifically any
action
taken by President Bush or his administration that has threatened our
wildernesses.

Robin

Socemdog


http://www.peopleandplanet.net/doc.php?id=1857


Op ed pieces about reports from "green" organizations are hardly hard
evidence
of Bush's "Assault" on the environment. The simple fact is that many of
the
actions taken during the current Administration
have either been overblown or misinterpeted, often on purpose to raise
funds
for organization like Sierra Club that has not be real successful with
membership in the past years. I'm not claiming that Bush is the best
environmental steward, but he is no worse that the Clinton Administration.


Well, who do you EXPECT to write critical reviews about Bush's environmental
poilicies? The White House? You can reject any messenger you want, but first
check their claims. Although the op-ed pieces are not the evidence
themselves, the legislation and rulings they refer to are public record.
I'm a bit overwhelmed at trying to find a few indicitive 'specific issues',
as every link I follow is loaded with them. Follow any of the news stories
here;
http://www.cspo.org/home/news/ The one about the clean air degredation in
the Grand Canyon is from the Salt Lake Tribune....hardly the Sierra Club.

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cg...0/MN161026.DTL links
to an article in the SanFran Chronicle about Bush's relaxation of the laws
creating roadless areas in National Forests. This opened up millions of
acres of forestland to timber industries, that had previously been off
limits, including hundreds of thousands of acres of old growth in the
Tongass in Alaska.

In Feb of this year, there was a consortium of scientists and Nobel
laureates, 63 in all, who condemned Bush's environmental policies as being
partisian, and of "systematically and deliberately distorting" the
scientific research to further political gain. I'm sure not all of those
guys were in the pay of the National Wildlife Resources Council.
http://www.washingtonfax.com/samples/2004/20040219.html

Last year, Bush instructed the Dept of Interior to stop barring drilling for
petroresources or mining on land proposed for wilderness protection. In
fact, he has put the least amount of land into wilderness status of any
presiden since the Wilderness Act was first proposed.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5898203/

This is just the tip of the iceberg, and I've tried avoiding the more
'Green' organizations and their rapsheets. However, I challenge others to
do their own research into this, and come up with any way that they can
show that Bush has been a friend to wilderness!

While you're at it, look up "Wise Use" and look at the connections between
Bush environmental (and wilderness policy) and this organization.

--riverman

"William R. Watt" wrote in message
...

"riverman" ) writes:

... I haven't
been this worried for the wildlands since James Watt.

Watt and Boulton built steam pumps to drain mines. You must be thinking of
someone else. If you knew them as you claim, it's amazing at your age you
have the strength to lift a paddle.


Right: Watts, not Watt.

James Watts was Ronald Reagan's Secretary of the Interior. Never met him,
but he was on a Grand Canyon trip just a day upstream from me back in the
early 80s. He got to the Confluence, declared that this was "all too
boring", and had a chopper evacuate him out and he got a flight back to DC.
When his boatmen caught up to my private the next day, we had a serious
party with all the leftover food and liquor, courtesy of the US government.

Watts was known as the 'anti-envronment Secretary" as he made statements
like "We will mine more, we will drill more, we will cut more timber!" and
he described environmental organizations as "left-wing cults dedicated to
bringing down the type of government I believe in". He declared on Dec 1,
1981 that he would no longer meet with environmentalists. On Dec 24, he
decided to open the entire US coastline to offshore drilling (he didn't get
that one through). Later that year, he instututed a policy that stopped
reviewing any more land in Alaska for Wilderness status (he DID get that one
through). And so on.

He was forced to resign two weeks after telling a group of coal lobbysts
that his commission "had every kind of mix you can have. I have a black, a
woman, two Jews and a cripple." He was a real piece of work.

Interestingly enough, although Watt's policy that barred reviewing land for
wilderness status in Alaska was later rescinded by Bruce Babbitt, Alaska is
in the process of reinstating it. When land is being reviewed for wilderness
status, it is protected from developement, mining or drilling. Bush
suppports reinstating a version of this policy allowing a 'last chance' to
open up land slated for wilderness protection. Sort of one last grab at the
bride, I guess. g


The principle threat to "wilderness" is all the paddlers and backpackers
scaring away the wildlife. I wonder why people don't stay at home to
paddle and hike. It's a fact that most people in North Amercia live in
cities and most cities are located on the shores of lakes and rivers. If
you want a pleasant place to paddle amd hike then get your city to clean
up the shoreline. If you are real wilderness enthusiasts you would stick
to your own backyard instead of ignoring it to drive long distances to
paddle in places where you contribute to the loss of wilderness. I have
paddled all afternoon within the City Of Ottawa on a weekday and not met
another person while on the saem afternoon there are traffic jams on the
portages in Algonquin Park's "wilderness".

As far as I'm concerned if you look up and see vapour trails it's not
wilderness.


You have some valid points there. I like going into wilderness areas, but in
reality I haven't been into a real one in decades. Most of my
camping/paddling etc is in remote regions, but they aren't wilderness. But I
really like the idea that they are out there...that there are huge tracts of
land that are off-limits to developers, don't have roads through them, and
are practically inaccessible.

Back in the dam building days, Floyd Dominy and others (head of the Bureau
of Reclamation) used to say that 'all that water is being wasted' if a dam
wasn't harnessing it. Now we realize that freeflowing streams are far from a
waste: they represent the original ecosystems, with all the subtle nuances
and unknown entities. We can always make a managed stream: you can't make a
wild one. Same with wilderness: its not being wasted if no one is in there.
But even more so, just because no one is in there (or hardly anyone),
doesn't mean we have to open it up either!

--riverman