rob Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 I think that all wilderness land and national forests should be closed to everyone but me, and a few of my friends. Votes in favor? Quote
builder206 Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 I'm sticking with my grow operation whether you like it or not. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 I think that all wilderness land and national forests should be closed to everyone but me, and a few of my friends. Votes in favor? As long as these roads stay washed out, they ARE closed to everyone but me and a few of my friends. Quote
rob Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Just wait till I get my gun. Then I'll be able to keep all the punks outta my trees Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 They want the government to give them something they don't want to pay for it WTF are you talking about? Do you think the NW Forest pass actually pass for anything other than the salary of the ranger driving around to give tickets? In any case, even someone who believes in smaller government, must acknowledge that one of the roles of the government is management of public lands. And that managements must be adequately funded and paid for by everyone. Just because everyone does not use it is irrelevant. There are lots of things our taxes go towards that each of us does not use. If we are going to go exclusively by usage fees for the NPS, NFS etc, then let's do it for every single thing, period. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Just wait till I get my gun. Then I'll be able to keep all the punks outta my trees I always suspected you were a tree hugger. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 In any case, even someone who believes in smaller government, must acknowledge that one of the roles of the government is management of public lands. We're libtards. We believe in the nanny state. I believe in managing public lands by doing not much. Much cheaper that way, and I get the whole place to myself more often. Quote
StevenSeagal Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 They want the government to give them something they don't want to pay for it WTF are you talking about? Do you think the NW Forest pass actually pass for anything other than the salary of the ranger driving around to give tickets? In any case, even someone who believes in smaller government, must acknowledge that one of the roles of the government is management of public lands. And that managements must be adequately funded and paid for by everyone. Just because everyone does not use it is irrelevant. There are lots of things our taxes go towards that each of us does not use. If we are going to go exclusively by usage fees for the NPS, NFS etc, then let's do it for every single thing, period. Gotta give you a for this post. A whole lot of so-called conservatives espouse the attitude of "if I don't see it or use it I shouldn't have to pay for it". There may be instances where this is valid, but around this state for example, it's most often heard in eastern Washington town meetings protesting against statewide dollars funding road projects in the Puget Sound area on the basis of "I don't drive there"; ignoring not only all the subsidies they receive but the fact that the state's economic center is there and if that slows down, so does everything else statewide. The forest pass is nothing more than a form of theft from the public, how this made it into policy is beyond me. Quote
rob Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Why do we buy a forest pass to pay for rangers to drive around giving tickets for people who don't have them? Why not just cancel the forest pass. Then we won't need to pay for people to check if I have a pass that is paying for them to check if I have a pass. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 They want the government to give them something they don't want to pay for it WTF are you talking about? Do you think the NW Forest pass actually pass for anything other than the salary of the ranger driving around to give tickets? In any case, even someone who believes in smaller government, must acknowledge that one of the roles of the government is management of public lands. And that managements must be adequately funded and paid for by everyone. Just because everyone does not use it is irrelevant. There are lots of things our taxes go towards that each of us does not use. If we are going to go exclusively by usage fees for the NPS, NFS etc, then let's do it for every single thing, period. Gotta give you a for this post. A whole lot of so-called conservatives espouse the attitude of "if I don't see it or use it I shouldn't have to pay for it". There may be instances where this is valid, but around this state for example, it's most often heard in eastern Washington town meetings protesting against statewide dollars funding road projects in the Puget Sound area on the basis of "I don't drive there"; ignoring not only all the subsidies they receive but the fact that the state's economic center is there and if that slows down, so does everything else statewide. The forest pass is nothing more than a form of theft from the public, how this made it into policy is beyond me. Thanks, and for the record, I rarely used the NPS, NFS etc until about 2002, and I felt the same way before then as now. It doesn't matter that I now enjoy our NF's and parks more currently. Last weekend I took advantage of the warm temps and dry weather spell to go mountain biking up at Tolt-McDonald. There was no user fee whatsoever (there was an optional donation box). It was so nice to experience that - and believe it or not a surprise. A surprise! That says a lot about how things of gone south. One thing I give Gregoire credit for is dumping the stupid state parks fee. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 The Forest Pass was a gateway policy to begin commercializing the wilderness by having the administering agencies sell various usage as a basket of 'products'. They actually used this terminology in their initial proposals. The citizenry should have cried FUCK NO, but liberal idiots who believed it would be a way to limit access (to protect the bunnies n shit) and conservatives who didn't go to the wilderness both supported the policy. The wilderness is not a basket of 'products'. It's public land. It's ours. We have a right to go there without paying a dime. That's not to say we have a right to have the government maintain roads and trails for us, however. If we want that, it should be paid for through taxes (MUCH lower overhead), not fees (almost all overhead). Tax funded wilderness management levels the playing field for people of all ages and incomes to enjoy public lands. Fees make it the exclusive playground of the upper classes. I would have gone crazy if I hadn't had access to free public lands as a kid. Kids nowadays should be able to experience the same wonder and adventure I was able to when I was growing up. Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 TTK: you are on ignore. Respect that. Do not respond to my posts. Show some modicum of decency. Try for once. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 (edited) TTK: you are on ignore. Respect that. Do not respond to my posts. Show some modicum of decency. Try for once. Fuck that. You'll get what's coming to you whenever I feel like shoving it up your poser ass, Your Majesty! There's your respect for ya! Edited February 28, 2008 by tvashtarkatena Quote
StevenSeagal Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Yup, I also believe all management of public land should be inherently built into our tax structure, which then requires that the federal government actually budget these items as a priority; rather than what we have now, which is a systematic fiscal starvation of our parks and forest departments, leaving them searching for ways to generate revenue (i.e. commercialization and privatization of public lands!). Quote
KaskadskyjKozak Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Yup, I also believe all management of public land should be inherently built into our tax structure, which then requires that the federal government actually budget these items as a priority; rather than what we have now, which is a systematic fiscal starvation of our parks and forest departments, Amen to that! And talk about ridiculous - the funding for for parks pales in comparison to other budget line items. If you want to make government more streamlined - that's not the place to start. Quote
tvashtarkatena Posted February 28, 2008 Posted February 28, 2008 Yup, I also believe all management of public land should be inherently built into our tax structure, which then requires that the federal government actually budget these items as a priority; rather than what we have now, which is a systematic fiscal starvation of our parks and forest departments, Amen to that! And talk about ridiculous - the funding for for parks pales in comparison to other budget line items. If you want to make government more streamlined - that's not the place to start. Please respect that KKK has me on ignore and don't respond to the responses of my responses to his postings, even if it's the person that has me on ignore is doing the responding. TIA, Queen Latifa Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.