Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Apres" data-source="post: 183648" data-attributes="member: 846">I feel like I got a little whiny/pleading in that last post sorry all. When areas become so popular that everyone is using them I could see a lot of multi use (birding, hiking, hunting, etc) areas having conflicting interests and being subject to lawsuits. I wonder if there would ever a be a recourse where lands that have ever received pittman robertson funds could be closed to other uses for a temporary time period, just to let others know that hunters are one of the biggest conservationists providing opportunity. Are you suggesting majority rule or 58% of the voters? The poll on this thread says 22 for 17 against. I wouldn't use it as a yardstick. Apres, you started this thread as a poll. A poll is a float or a feeler to gauge the crowd. To write down the pros and cons of discussions and finally mitigate or neutralize the cons at a later date.-what I was trying to say is if it would be put to a public vote I think this passes with flying colors most uneducated(politically) sheeple would feel really good about saving a small piece of scenic land from the big bad oil companies. Without ever considering the long term ramifications one way or the other. Your right these forums are a very select group of people that can't be used to gauge a more general audience.If you could rope and catch a winged unicorn, (maybe after baiting it close enough with a pile of corn) would you saddle it up and ride across the prairie skies? Is that a Chris LeDoux song?Did you even read the articles and information I provided in the links?-I read some skimmed some, but... I did open everyone. -overall black and white I favor preservation over destruction. My selfish interests are that I (and my future lineage) would want to continue to use these areas (camp,hunt,birdwatch,forage,etc)but if I had the option to preserve this land, but could never again visit, use, think, or talk about it I would do it just to know it had been preservedtouche what if's are hard to avoid aren't theyI guess what I was asking is if we joined together and started an org. that was made up of only private individuals with no outside funding and made this same proposal (multi use wilderness designation). based on your reasons which I admit are all legitimate concerns. It seems that we would have the same issue. You couldn't claim hidden agenda by the group. but the same overall issues would apply. Lawsuits challenging multi use or restrictons, etc. These groups can come in at any time and start challenging things, even when it's private land, state owned, federal, etc. There is something endangered everywhere. We do truly need to put a stop to the esa lawsuit gameMy overall question than to any of you is how do we get:-a Wilderness type designation that allows the land to be preserved from surface disturbance.-non motorized except perhaps by permit only for accessibility issues (handicap)-a true multi use landscape that subjected to natural forces only as it would have been ie: no logging, grazing by cattle to simulate buffalo herds, etc.-safe management state or federal to minimize lawsuitsI am asking for ideas let's try to refrain from tearing each other down and work together to preserve the land</blockquote>

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

Reply to thread

Recent Posts

Friends of NDA