Page 7 of 9 FirstFirst ... 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 151 to 175 of 221
  1. #151
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by ULLRismyco-pilot View Post
    mtbakerskier, It leaves a lasting impact on the WILDERNESS area because it promotes heavier usage in these areas where they are trying to reduce human impact. This is a wilderness area where you aren't even allowed to use a mountain bike or, in some cases climbing pro.

    They don't want him saying "look what I can do! Come on out and try it yourself" to everyone and their brother because it will increase their workload and expenses and impact on wilderness areas.
    can I say El Cap video didn't make schneider and hans free the nose in a day and the onslaught of would be soloists speed climbers pursuing records the clog the park have nothing to do with the medium, it's the activity and skill set of the population base that changes things...am I getting too deep yet....

  2. #152
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    to all you wilderness lovers.....it's a brave new world....all roadless areas are defacto wilderness areas, so why all the commotion.....most people don't go and that is why you are an elitist....the wilderness is for all to use, me and my horse included....

    ps
    I have been doing this a while, even though I have been called a poser


    me 15, notch on whitney mountaineers route

  3. #153
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    If you want the forest service to function well (being adequately staffed by the most competent reasonable personnel possible, each with an appropriate workload) you must vote for politicians who will fund the agency at a level that can support that standard.

  4. #154
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiMan View Post
    If you want the forest service to function well (being adequately staffed by the most competent reasonable personnel possible, each with an appropriate workload) you must vote for politicians who will fund the agency at a level that can support that standard.
    it is easier just to fund more enforcement and less administrators and scientists et al, but then how could they generate all the paperwork that bogs down any person or entity that wants to challenge them....bring it on....my area of....well, I am well read on the subject...

  5. #155
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    hairy:
    the ways an agency fails when underfunded are complicated.

    I don't think it's really as simple as your post suggests.

    When I see poor decision making going on in a severely underfunded agency I tend to imagine:

    1) Many competent personnel have seen the train wreck coming and left the agency.

    2) Their jobs are then filled by new personnel who need to learn the job, or the duties of their job are being performed by someone else as a collateral duty, or the ball is dropped entirely until a crisis arises.

    3) Many positions are eliminated, so expert opinions within the agency about a particular issue are harder to come by, and with the increased workload and the fact that the work is being spread to personnel performing collateral duties who have very little time to research issues or track down expert opinions the potential for poor decision making increases exponentially.

    4) The agency is under constant pressure to eliminate more positions, so a feeling of job instability causes personnel to fear bending/breaking any regulations because they believe, with some justification, that management is looking for ways to get rid of them. This is a pool of people who may not have good options to leave their positions, the personnel left behind as others have jumped ship. Their focus may shift from resource management to job security. They may not want to go out on a limb by following the spirit of a regulation rather than the letter, or internally object to a disagreeable decision because they may be afraid to agitate a supervisor and find themselves without a career. This removes the kind of collaborative environment that supports common sense (i.e. a group effort to determine the greater public good) in government and replaces it with a scenario dictated by personal interests and individual paranoia.

    This is all hypothetical. I don't know much about this particular case. I'm just saying that we who enjoy the public lands need to be conscious of the way we, via our representatives affect the way our lands are managed.

    I think we all see this and ask "why?". I'm saying let's look past the easy answer ("the stupid forest service made a bad call"...or whatever) and ask why the FS would make an unreasonable decision. I'm saying an agency in a financial crisis is going to boot stuff like this on a regular basis and if we want the forest service to work well, we need to pay for it to do so.
    Last edited by ill-advised strategy; 05-02-2007 at 08:03 PM.

  6. #156
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Location
    P-tex, CA
    Posts
    8,196
    The taxpayers own the public lands, no? Educate me here. Does this include Wilderness areas?

    In any case, its quite obvious to me that the permitting process is to provide accountability for large scale groups/filmers/hollywood to go into an pristine area that everyone would like to protect.

    What I gather from this heated issue on May 2nd, 2007 is that the regulation needs to be streamlined to meet the FS's goals. Winter non-motorized travel versus summer hiking etc. Snowmobiles have been debated adnasuem, and I do believe that they should be restricted but not banned. Also, I think it should be separated between the seasons as walking on snow (which less people will do) is dramatically less harmful to the area versus venturing on/off trails where every step is leaving a mark.

    Although people on this message board are more likely to venture into Wilderness areas, especially high alpine areas in the winter/snowpacked months, I honestly can't see this huge "rush" of people wanting to brave the winter elements, hike thousands of feet, at high altitude, just because of Dav's film. Whereas, I keep thinking about the summer months, where undoubtedly, millions of people can put on hiking shoes and tag peaks in comfortable temps.

    End of my rant....
    Last edited by skier666; 05-02-2007 at 08:24 PM.

  7. #157
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by Trackhead View Post
    More hypocrisy on our strict wilderness standard.
    Uh, so they are contemplating changing the rules regarding predator control. Big fucking deal, what does that have to do with a guy going into a wilderness area with a camera crew?

    Everyone should get a clue and look at the USFS for what it is. An agency that is intentionally being systematically gutted, underfunded, abandoned by it's oldest employees, managed by an incompetent liar (Mark Rey) and contracted out left and right for more money than it costs the government to do the same job.

    In a time when anyones job could become "unfunded" overnight, most people are following the letter of the law. And guess who wrote the law, thats right, the people we elected. Not the poor permit processing clerk.
    "These are crazy times Mr Hatter, crazy times. Crazy like Buddha! Muwahaha!"

  8. #158
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    Quote Originally Posted by skier666 View Post
    The taxpayers own the public lands, no? Educate me here. Does this include Wilderness areas?
    Yes of course the public lands are owned by the public. Much like public roads for example, our collective will as to how they're managed is expressed through a big process that occasionally fails the end user. I'm posting to say that an important link in that chain from maggot to good land management is our voting for politicians dedicated to restoring the agencies to full functionality so that the agencies and their employees will be robust, independent, and secure enough to collect data and input from citizens and employees and make the right call when complex difficult issues like this come up.

    edit: thanks char...
    Last edited by ill-advised strategy; 05-02-2007 at 09:06 PM.

  9. #159
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    if the government can't manage and utilize the land effectively, perhaps the land should be sold to disparate entities each with their own needs or uses...prolly get managed better by corporate america than the current deal

  10. #160
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    wilderness gets lumped in a cost but no benefit category with the forest service, the parks however have a preservation agenda so doesn't it seem logical that wilderness areas should be under park control.....any non-devoloped area in a park is wilderness by statute....just a thought...

  11. #161
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    2,884
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    if the government can't manage and utilize the land effectively, perhaps the land should be sold to disparate entities each with their own needs or uses...prolly get managed better by corporate america than the current deal
    "These are crazy times Mr Hatter, crazy times. Crazy like Buddha! Muwahaha!"

  12. #162
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by char View Post
    fuckin' woods gotta come from somewhere...if you are a naturalist, strip your clothes, head off into the woods, and kill something, make some clothes, try to build a fire or tartare your catch, then find a cave cuz that's all you'd have without progress...kids these days...

  13. #163
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    4,448
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiMan View Post

    This is all hypothetical. I don't know much about this particular case. I'm just saying that we who enjoy the public lands need to be conscious of the way we, via our representatives affect the way our lands are managed.

    I think we all see this and ask "why?". I'm saying let's look past the easy answer ("the stupid forest service made a bad call"...or whatever) and ask why the FS would make an unreasonable decision. I'm saying an agency in a financial crisis is going to boot stuff like this on a regular basis and if we want the forest service to work well, we need to pay for it to do so.
    though I disagree that it is an unreasonable decision, everything else you say in your post is pretty accurate. It's a big reason why the decision regarding Dav ends up looking so hypocritical. Budgets right now are so low that even the old-timer farts don't remember things looking so bad. How are you supposed to protect a resource when you have a grand total of one or two law enforcement officers a plot of land hundreds of thousands or millions of acres in size?

    Quote Originally Posted by skier666
    The taxpayers own the public lands, no? Educate me here. Does this include Wilderness areas?

    In any case, its quite obvious to me that the permitting process is to provide accountability for large scale groups/filmers/hollywood to go into an pristine area that everyone would like to protect.
    it's more about the resulting impact from viewers of said films. you could double check this by calling the Wilderness Manager at your nearest district FS office. boy scouts, in general, do far more resource damage than even a large film crew would. the boy scouts don't show their slide shows to an audience of millions, though.



    Also, I think it should be separated between the seasons as walking on snow (which less people will do) is dramatically less harmful to the area versus venturing on/off trails where every step is leaving a mark.

    Although people on this message board are more likely to venture into Wilderness areas, especially high alpine areas in the winter/snowpacked months, I honestly can't see this huge "rush" of people wanting to brave the winter elements, hike thousands of feet, at high altitude, just because of Dav's film. Whereas, I keep thinking about the summer months, where undoubtedly, millions of people can put on hiking shoes and tag peaks in comfortable temps.
    like you said, the resource would, more than likely, stand a lot more winter traffic than summer traffic. The problem is that even a "winter" film will still create interest in the summer backpacking audience. these folks won't be walking on a durable surface that can withstand essentially limitless traffic. (assuming that the traffic doesn't drop trash, but that's litter, not damage to the resource, per se). just as I could watch a film of mountains shot in the summer and picture which lines I'd want to ski, people can look at Dav's film and say, "hey, honey, let's go camp at the base of that thing this summer."

  14. #164
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    if the government can't manage and utilize the land effectively, perhaps the land should be sold to disparate entities each with their own needs or uses...prolly get managed better by corporate america than the current deal
    here's where I think you're missing the boat:

    it's being run by corporate america now! That's why it's failing.

    The latest batch of conservatives, in my view, like to appoint private industry executives to head government agencies, cut the agencies funding, watch them fail, then propose private industry as the solution.

    I believe the answer would be to fund the agency, appoint leadership with a focus on comprehensive land management (greatest good for the most people for the longest time) rather than industry deregulation and cost cutting via dismantling the agency, and provide some incentives for veteran employees to return to the jobs they love.

    Definitely NOT a public land selloff.

    I don't really want to be a dick, but I think even proposing a selloff is evidence that you're not grasping this or seeing it so differently from me that we'll never understand one another.

  15. #165
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiMan View Post
    here's where I think you're missing the boat:

    it's being run by corporate america now! That's why it's failing.

    The latest batch of conservatives, in my view, like to appoint private industry executives to head government agencies, cut the agencies funding, watch them fail, then propose private industry as the solution.

    I believe the answer would be to fund the agency, appoint leadership with a focus on comprehensive land management (greatest good for the most people for the longest time) rather than industry deregulation and cost cutting via dismantling the agency, and provide some incentives for veteran employees to return to the jobs they love.

    Definitely NOT a public land selloff.

    I don't really want to be a dick, but I think even proposing a selloff is evidence that you're not grasping this or seeing it so differently from me that we'll never understand one another.
    the troubles you describe are not new...the dems did worse

  16. #166
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    the dems did worse
    I strenuously disagree. What are your criteria for judging better/worse.

  17. #167
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiMan View Post
    I strenuously disagree. What are your criteria for judging better/worse.
    James Watt

  18. #168
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    http://www.sierraclub.org/policy/con...wilderness.asp

    http://www.friendsoftheinyo.org/

    close it off they will.......watch out for elitist do gooders...

  19. #169
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    oregon
    Posts
    2,884
    I'd say the Sec of Interiors' resignation today, and the reasons why, is pretty indicative of this administrations approach to the land management agencies.
    "These are crazy times Mr Hatter, crazy times. Crazy like Buddha! Muwahaha!"

  20. #170
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    even though there is more demand, these guys see it as a reason to protect it...sick shit...keep it all for me and mine....selfish fuckers


    http://www.friendsoftheinyo.org/
    National Forest Road Inventory
    Over 55 years (1946 to 2000), the number of visitors to the National Forest System increased by 18 times its previous figure; in 2002, the number of visitors reached 214 million. It is predicted that the U.S. population will double by 2100, leading to an even further increase to the number of visitors to national forests. It is expected growth in population and number of visitors will be accompanied by pressures on undeveloped natural land for recreational purposes. The U.S. Forest Service acknowledges that "rising use may trigger the need for increased management to protect natural resources (http://www.fs.fed.us/ projects/four-threats/key-messages/unmanaged-recreation.shtml)."
    With a team of interns FOI was able to do extensive route mapping and inventorying the summer of 2005. We maintain this information as a separate site, which can be found here.

  21. #171
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    parks = interior
    forests = agriculture

    conflicting values my whole life....nobody can make it logical to protect the wilderness, so they close it off with quotas that aren't even based on empirical data....don't get me started
    the data man
    http://www.srnr.arizona.edu/~gimblett/rbsim.html

    the idiots
    http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/inyo/project...an/summary.pdf

  22. #172
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,771
    my criteria is my own observation of how the agency is functioning. I see a difference between now and the clinton years.

    I'm not going to pretend that I know who James Watt is. I may be a dumbass, but I can see what's going on with the FS, and it's not good. I don't see conservatives stepping up to restore funding and rehire people, what I see is a goofy roundabout attempt at justifying a lot of really ineffective contracting.

    edit:
    Watt's conservative strain of born-again Christianity also came under heavy scrutiny and criticism in some quarters, as when (in 1983) he banned The Beach Boys from performing their annual Fourth of July concert on the National Mall on the grounds that rock concerts drew "an undesirable element."
    A 1990 book by Austin Miles quoted Watt as saying, in no particular context, "After the last tree is felled, Christ will come back."
    Watt admits that his Christian faith informs his attitude toward the environment but has denied both the attribution and the associated characterizations of his policy
    yikes. uh. so you were kidding about James Watt right?

    if not, I'm pretty much considering you a douchenozzle as of now.
    Last edited by ill-advised strategy; 05-02-2007 at 10:22 PM.

  23. #173
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    the forest service limits stock usage in the wilderness yet knows nothing of the carrying capacity of grazing areas any given year and they let them graze as needed by whoever shows up....it is comedy in wilderness management, and it is up to us to have constructive alernatives....I propose to take wilderness away from the circus and give it to the cops....then I can be an oulaw skier

  24. #174
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by YetiMan View Post
    my criteria is my own observation of how the agency is functioning. I see a difference between now and the clinton years.

    I'm not going to pretend that I know who James Watt is. I may be a dumbass, but I can see what's going on with the FS, and it's not good. I don't see conservatives stepping up to restore funding and rehire people, what I see is a goofy roundabout attempt at justifying a lot of really ineffective contracting.
    the funding and people are in place, they are just lazy....meeting, travel, meeting, planning, closure signs....you need to get out there more often.....

  25. #175
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    fuckin' woods gotta come from somewhere...if you are a naturalist, strip your clothes, head off into the woods, and kill something, make some clothes, try to build a fire or tartare your catch, then find a cave cuz that's all you'd have without progress...kids these days...
    I hate to call someone out, but your a fucking moron. You can have sustainable forestry practices, but that photo is about as far as you can get from it. Industry=rape. We need public land to be administered for the greater good, not for timber companies who wanna turn the forests into a crop.
    </pissed off FS employee rant>

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •