Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Apres" data-source="post: 183635" data-attributes="member: 846">Fritz/gst again thanks for the info. Have you ever read the book "If you give a mouse a cookie"? Let me summarize it for you... essential if you give a mouse a cookie it becomes your friend asks you for a bunch of favors and eventually ends up sleeping with your mom... seems a little far fetched doesn't it. So your saying we shouldn't save any of our beautiful native landscape in it's natural form. Not even 5% of this one area. We should road it and mine it on boom and bust cycles and watch radioactive waste get tossed in the ditches, spills happen, and native animal habitat dwindle. All because your worried about what theoretical stuff might happen after the designation.First it's the wilderness designation. Then there will be another time period to help facilitate change and we get to discuss those next changes and we get to vote and go to the meaningless comment period meetings. You can give a mouse a cookie and still throw him back outside. I read the article about the monument in Utah that sucks for those people I hate that that happened but that was there and this is here and there are a completely different set of circumstances.Let's evaluate the plan thats written and not the what if's after that. If you stripped the names from this group and reevaluated it. how much would it change your decision.What would your proposal be if 58% of ND wanted to save 5% of the LMNG? Mine would be remarkably similiar.Can anybody clarify this for me? If they feds do transfer ownership to the states to manage, as I understood it they still couldn't change the wilderness designation but could sell the remaining land in the LMNG's</blockquote>

Verification: What is the most common fish caught on this site?

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA