Another victory for special development interests

[Rev. Coyote]

Another predictable move by the anti-wilderness, pro-development Bush crew.

------------------------------------

Bush taps forester who opposed roadless plan to head up BLM

By Todd DvorakThe Associated Press
Aspen, CO Colorado
June 5, 2007

BOISE, Idaho

[stefan]

At the time, Caswell was in charge of the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho and Montana, and in a memo to his boss condemned the plan, suggesting, among other flaws, it ignored a golden rule for making policy on public forests: What do locals think?

oh don't get me started on this rev. coyote!

all i will say to his comment is that i think, over the past 400 years, we've had enough of what locals think should happen to the forests

[Rev. Coyote]

At the time, Caswell was in charge of the Clearwater National Forest in Idaho and Montana, and in a memo to his boss condemned the plan, suggesting, among other flaws, it ignored a golden rule for making policy on public forests: What do locals think?

oh don't get me started on this rev. coyote!

all i will say to his comment is that i think, over the past 400 years, we've had enough of what locals think should happen to the forests

The thing is, these people like Caswell don't really care what the locals think. That's just a ruse. They care what the developers think -- the ones who put their bosses in office. "The locals" is a folksy reference meant to garner support from the "useful idiots."

[stefan]

The thing is, these people like Caswell don't really care what the locals think. That's just a ruse. They care what the developers think -- the ones who put their bosses in office. "The locals" is a folksy reference meant to garner support from the "useful idiots."

please understand i mean local in a very generalized sense.

[Udink]

please understand i mean local in a very generalized sense.

Hahah...I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but that's one of the funnier things I've read in awhile.

[stefan]

please understand i mean locals in a very generalized sense.

Hahah...I'm not sure if you meant it that way, but that's one of the funnier things I've read in awhile.

do you mean because it sounds somewhat oxymoronic?

by generalized i meant locals on different levels, but different from, say, global.

it's often been the case that the way we deal with our forests is provincial (in that local sense as well as that narrowminded sense). the roadless rule was the obvious comprehensive step in the right direction for our scant trackless lands. bush is a punk for rescinding it upon taking office. [the one issue i will resort to calling bush a punk on]

[Rev. Coyote]

bush is a punk for rescinding it upon taking office. [the one issue i will resort to calling bush a punk on]

I disagree. He was acting more like a dickhole.

[UtahFire]

The thing is, these people like Caswell don't really care what the locals think. That's just a ruse. They care what the developers think -- the ones who put their bosses in office. "The locals" is a folksy reference meant to garner support from the "useful idiots."

please understand i mean local in a very generalized sense.

I'm confused. I thought wilderness supporters didn't care what locals thought? Are you and Rev saying you think locals voices are important or not? Am I missing something here?

[Rev. Coyote]

The thing is, these people like Caswell don't really care what the locals think. That's just a ruse. They care what the developers think -- the ones who put their bosses in office. "The locals" is a folksy reference meant to garner support from the "useful idiots."

please understand i mean local in a very generalized sense.

I'm confused. I thought wilderness supporters didn't care what locals thought? Are you and Rev saying you think locals voices are important or not? Am I missing something here?

Two-fold answer: Caswell is lying. He cares for the development interests. When he refers to the "locals," it's a trick. He's using heartwarming folksy language to keep votes, while keeping his special interest developer funding intact.

Second part, if the locals care to protect their wilderness, then I'm with them. If they don't advocate protection of local wilderness, then I cannot stand with them. Important to note here -- if the wilderness in question is on federal land, then it is local to anyone in the US. We all own it. The Shenandoah National Park next to my home belongs just as much to me as to someone in Alaska or Kansas.

Does this clarify the matter?

[UtahFire]

The thing is, these people like Caswell don't really care what the locals think. That's just a ruse. They care what the developers think -- the ones who put their bosses in office. "The locals" is a folksy reference meant to garner support from the "useful idiots."

please understand i mean local in a very generalized sense.

I'm confused. I thought wilderness supporters didn't care what locals thought? Are you and Rev saying you think locals voices are important or not? Am I missing something here?

Two-fold answer: Caswell is lying. He cares for the development interests. When he refers to the "locals," it's a trick. He's using heartwarming folksy language to keep votes, while keeping his special interest developer funding intact.

Second part, if the locals care to protect their wilderness, then I'm with them. If they don't advocate protection of local wilderness, then I cannot stand with them. Important to note here -- if the wilderness in question is on federal land, then it is local to anyone in the US. We all own it. The Shenandoah National Park next to my home belongs just as much to me as to someone in Alaska or Kansas.

Does this clarify the matter?

Yes. pro excessive wilderness advocates generally don't place any stock in what locals have to say about wilderness in their counties. Unless, as you stated, they agree with them.

The argument is always that it's Federal land and therefore everyone "owns" it. While this is certainly true, the Feds do not exclusively manage and care for it. The feds rely on counties to maintain access, law enforcement, fish and game management and many other administrative functions. Historically, States, Counties and the Feds have worked in partnerships for land management. I'm guessing you would like to see this change?

[scoutabout]

Two-fold answer: Caswell is lying. He cares for the development interests. When he refers to the "locals," it's a trick. He's using heartwarming folksy language to keep votes, while keeping his special interest developer funding intact.

How do you know he's lying? When you say "useful idiots" are you referring to the voting taxpayers? Are you a "useful idiot"?

Second part, if the locals care to protect their wilderness, then I'm with them. If they don't advocate protection of local wilderness, then I cannot stand with them.

So you cannot stand anyone who doesn't agree for you? Hooray tolerance! At least you are finally being honest.

And this elitist, do-as-I-say attitude is why you will lose in your effort to create wilderness where it does not exist.

[Rev. Coyote]

Yes. pro excessive wilderness advocates generally don't place any stock in what locals have to say about wilderness in their counties. Unless, as you stated, they agree with them.

The argument is always that it's Federal land and therefore everyone "owns" it. While this is certainly true, the Feds do not exclusively manage and care for it. The feds rely on counties to maintain access, law enforcement, fish and game management and many other administrative functions. Historically, States, Counties and the Feds have worked in partnerships for land management. I'm guessing you would like to see this change?

The term "excessive wilderness" made me laugh. That's like the scene in Amadeaus in which Mozart is accused of putting "too many notes" in his music. Excessive wilderness um, yeah. Like excessive clean air. Or excessive clear water. Bad scary stuff!

"Locals" are not uniquely qualified to understand what's best for nearby wilderness areas. So when they propose development or destructive uses for that land, they are what we call "wrong." Sorry to break it to you, but this is reality.

As far as patterns of land management agreements, I think the feds need to pony up more regional assistance.

[Rev. Coyote]

Two-fold answer: Caswell is lying. He cares for the development interests. When he refers to the "locals," it's a trick. He's using heartwarming folksy language to keep votes, while keeping his special interest developer funding intact.

How do you know he's lying? When you say "useful idiots" are you referring to the voting taxpayers? Are you a "useful idiot"?

Second part, if the locals care to protect their wilderness, then I'm with them. If they don't advocate protection of local wilderness, then I cannot stand with them.

So you cannot stand anyone who doesn't agree for you? Hooray tolerance! At least you are finally being honest.

And this elitist, do-as-I-say attitude is why you will lose in your effort to create wilderness where it does not exist.

Never proposed "creating" wilderness, just protecting what we have, Bub.

How do I know Caswell is lying? He's a politician and a "conservative." Born liar.

[UtahFire]

The term "excessive wilderness" made me laugh. That's like the scene in Amadeaus in which Mozart is accused of putting "too many notes" in his music. Excessive wilderness um, yeah. Like excessive clean air. Or excessive clear water. Bad scary stuff!

I can appreciate your notion of what "excess" means. I'm also glad you got a chuckle from my reference to "excessive wilderness". Although, I don't think it would matter to you, a clarification on that may be warranted. By "excessive" I mean creating wilderness where it currently does not exist. I have no problem with real wilderness and would not consider it excessive.

"Locals" are not uniquely qualified to understand what's best for nearby wilderness areas. So when they propose development or destructive uses for that land, they are what we call "wrong." Sorry to break it to you, but this is reality.

So environmentalists are uniquely qualified to understand what's best huh? My guess is that your house is now built on land which at one time would have qualified as "wilderness".

As far as patterns of land management agreements, I think the feds need to pony up more regional assistance.

So you would support an amendment to the ARWA which would relieve all State and Local government from any management or administrative obligations with respect to Federal lands?

[scoutabout]

Never proposed "creating" wilderness, just protecting what we have, Bub.

Then you are misinformed. I've seen you support ARWA. It "creates" wilderness on land that does not possess wilderness qualities.

[Sombeech]

Bub

[Rev. Coyote]

So environmentalists are uniquely qualified to understand what's best huh? My guess is that your house is now built on land which at one time would have qualified as "wilderness".

Wilderness preservation is a good thing, and it doesn't take any sort of unique person to understand that idea.

As far as the house comment, I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at aside from a cheap shot. Yes DUHHHHHHHH the land it was on used to be wild.

In case you missed my point (red crayon time here), I support the preservation of wild public lands. Good open space, canyons, free rivers and forests not currently under development -- not given over to real estate speculators, oil and gas interests, mining interests, etc. There's precious little left. However you shoose to define wilderness is a topic of endless discussion I'm sure. But public land is ours (all of us) and we share a mutual responsibility to its protection.

But I'm sure you'll have a smart comeback.

[Rev. Coyote]

Bub

I did that JUST for you! Oh, and the red crayon reference in case you missed it.

Cheers,
Thurston Howell III

[Rev. Coyote]

Never proposed "creating" wilderness, just protecting what we have, Bub.

Then you are misinformed. I've seen you support ARWA. It "creates" wilderness on land that does not possess wilderness qualities.

I'll just reference my response to UtahFire's post on the wilderness definition.

Believe me, I throughly understand you and he find it necessary to bash the idea of wilderness protection or to engage in insane rhetoric like "excess wilderness" (God I love that one), because you have a political axe to grind associated with you involement in ORV political action groups. It's a pathetic marriage, that between the Ribbonites and the development interests.

[UtahFire]

Never proposed "creating" wilderness, just protecting what we have, Bub.

Then you are misinformed. I've seen you support ARWA. It "creates" wilderness on land that does not possess wilderness qualities.

I'll just reference my response to UtahFire's post on the wilderness definition.

Believe me, I throughly understand you and he find it necessary to bash the idea of wilderness protection or to engage in insane rhetoric like "excess wilderness" (God I love that one), because you have a political axe to grind associated with you involement in ORV political action groups. It's a pathetic marriage, that between the Ribbonites and the development interests.

Actually, even though I have stated it many times, you don't understand my position at all. I am in favor of wilderness and don't bash it at all. I don't want development in Utah's wild places. In fact, I would like it if the population of Utah was at least half of what it is. My use of "pro excessive wilderness" has to do with creation of wilderness which does not exist. It has nothing to do with protecting wild lands which truly possess wilderness characteristics. I don't know what a "Ribbonite" is.

My argument is that a percentage (I think about 50%) of what ARWA calls wilderness does not meet wilderness criteria. That does not mean the certain areas should not have protection under some other land use designation. It just means it's not wilderness. It's a simple argument. SUWA claims to have mountains of data to support their proposal. I have asked them to see the data many times and have had no response. Maybe you SUWA supporters could get your hands on it and make it available? If it is as compelling as they say it is, it should shut critics like me (and many others) up.