Page 8 of 9 FirstFirst ... 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 LastLast
Results 176 to 200 of 221
  1. #176
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    475 and closing in on 1/3 of the way....

  2. #177
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    4,448
    there's people who I agree with on this thread, people I disagree with on this thread, and then there's hairy, who seems too hopped up on PCP to contribute anything that wouldn't be considered non-sequitur.

  3. #178
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Location
    YetiMan
    Posts
    10,765
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    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.....
    either you're a douchenozzle or you're trolling for an argument.

    so I'll let what I've said earlier stand. Good night troll/nozzle

  4. #179
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by boredboiseboy View Post
    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>
    it is a fucking crop

    housing choices

    steel = mining

    brick = more mining

    wood = grows back

    stop fucking and we wouldn't need so much shit....trees grow back, slopes can be reclaimed, do you need some illustrations of regrowth?

  5. #180
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    217
    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.
    Hi Im boredboiseboy, a FS employee, and I endorse this message.

    I would like to point out that vets get preferential hiring status in the FS

  6. #181
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Boise, ID
    Posts
    217
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    it is a fucking crop

    housing choices

    steel = mining

    brick = more mining

    wood = grows back

    stop fucking and we wouldn't need so much shit....trees grow back, slopes can be reclaimed, do you need some illustrations of regrowth?
    No moron, its an ecosystem. Each stage of growth has a specific type of flora and fauna that live in that stage of growth, and if you fuck it up you endanger that ecosystem, create fire harazards, and set the stages for epidemics of infestations of disease and infestations. You should go back to the city and leave forest management to people who know whats going on.

  7. #182
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by boredboiseboy View Post
    Hi Im boredboiseboy, a FS employee, and I endorse this message.

    I would like to point out that vets get preferential hiring status in the FS
    are you splainin' the handicap?

  8. #183
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Location
    Alco-Hall of Fame
    Posts
    3,059
    da-nile bump
    "It is not the result that counts! It is not the result but the spirit! Not what - but how. Not what has been attained - but at what price.
    - A. Solzhenitsyn

  9. #184
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by boredboiseboy View Post
    No moron, its an ecosystem. Each stage of growth has a specific type of flora and fauna that live in that stage of growth, and if you fuck it up you endanger that ecosystem, create fire harazards, and set the stages for epidemics of infestations of disease and infestations. You should go back to the city and leave forest management to people who know whats going on.
    different ecosystems develop based on their environment....fire burn areasare an example.....this argument should hold some sway though.....every year more and more people show damaged wilderness areas, damaged by man, as though man is ruining the wilderness, well let me tell you this, wilderness usually damages wilderness the most through fire, flood avalanche etc....did you say back to the city bboy, perhaps you should go to school and revisit the revegetation after fire and logging lecture or sumthin...be careful when you don't know exactly who you are talking to, since you may get beat down like a circus nozzle....isn't it hypocritical to work for an agency that destroys the forest, while claiming to want to save it....

    http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/r...ton03/all.html

  10. #185
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    did I say that I have spent my life hoping to save the wilderness from development since I attended the draft management plan meetings for yosemite in feb 1977, and since that time, I have learned to despise the elitis enviro's I have met...paul mcfarland is an example at http://www.friendsoftheinyo.org
    they want to close off wilderness so the animals can have it back....fuvk them, and I have more so I will say this once again....bring it on...I like to debate this....always have, always will

  11. #186
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Posts
    10,886
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy
    the troubles you describe are not new...the dems did worse
    Quote Originally Posted by hairy View Post
    James Watt
    Are you a complete idiot? James Watt was the Secretray of Interior in a Republican administration - Reagan to be exact. And one of the worst SoI's ever, which is saying a lot.
    And I guess that I just don't know

  12. #187
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    4,448

    updated article

    With bold highlights added to some of the more interesting, relevant sections:

    Quote Originally Posted by Aspen Times
    Chris Davenport's plan to show a film of him climbing and skiing 14,000-foot peaks in Colorado has run into a challenge as great as the feat itself.

    The White River National Forest and five other national forests in Colorado denied two requests by Davenport and filmmaker Ben Galland to commercially film him skiing high peaks within wilderness areas, White River Forest Supervisor Maribeth Gustafson announced Monday. Galland's request sought to use shots from a helicopter of Davenport skiing a big peak.

    Commercial filming in wilderness requires a permit. Violating the rule is punishable by a $5,000 fine, up to six months in jail or a combination.

    The U.S. Forest Service concluded the film would not promote the wilderness characteristics of solitude and untrammeled nature, according to a statement from the agency.

    "I'm a little bit disturbed by their take on that," Davenport said.

    The 36-year-old Aspenite set out in January 2006 to climb and ski all 54 of Colorado's "fourteeners" within one year. He accomplished his goal on Jan. 19, with three days to spare.

    Davenport said he wasn't thinking of his adventure in terms of a commercial film when he first set out. Two friends from Aspen shot film of him tackling some peaks early in the quest. They didn't know if they would capture anything "good," he said, but the trio liked the footage.

    Davenport applied in August 2006 to use film up to that date and to undertake additional shots in wilderness for commercial use, according to Rich Doak, acting recreation staff officer in the White River National Forest.


    The agency denied Davenport's request within a 60-day requirement. In the meantime, California filmmaker Galland approached Davenport about making a film and, after some thought, he agreed.

    The Forest Service received a second request from Galland on Feb. 26 to use footage already shot: "In the proposal submitted by Galland, the movie starring [Davenport] involved the use of a helicopter to film skiing on one or more peaks located in wilderness," the Forest Service statement said.

    Doak said there is virtually no scenario where filming with a helicopter would be allowed because of the disruption to wilderness solitude. He noted that even mountain rescue groups must get permission to use a chopper for their operations.

    The agency has more discretion to approve commercial filming that doesn't use helicopters. In this case, the film wasn't seen as beneficial to wilderness, the agency's statement said.

    "The film does not promote wilderness values or ethics but rather focuses on the concept of the 'ski challenge,'" the forest supervisor's office said.

    Doak said the Forest Service decision wasn't intended to reflect on Davenport's accomplishment. The issue is the film's relation to wilderness.

    "I don't know that they could have made this compatible," he said. "Really good skiing doesn't promote wilderness."

    Davenport countered that his experience embodies part of the wilderness experience. The film could showcase the solitude that exists in the highest ground during winters. Davenport noted that he ran into only four other skiers on the high peaks, outside of people accompanying him, during his quest. As for untrammeled nature, he pointed out that his group skinned up the peaks on snow, causing no damage to the delicate terrain.

    He said he understands the Forest Service's concerns for wilderness, but the agency's concern should be directed at the masses - estimated at 500,000 - hiking and climbing the peaks during summers.

    "The wilderness is already overrun in the summer," he said.

    Davenport is the featured speaker Friday at a Colorado Fourteener Initiative fundraiser. The nonprofit organization is dedicated to preserving the state's 14,000-foot peaks through trail maintenance and user education.

    The forest supervisor's statement raised a concern that Davenport's film might inspire more people to visit the fourteeners during winters - putting themselves at risk and placing more pressure on the peaks. Davenport scoffed at the perceived threat. Few people possess the skills to tackle the feat, he said.

    Despite their differing philosophies, Davenport said he will comply with the Forest Service decision and edit out shots of him on a fourteener in wilderness. It will alter the film significantly, but it can be salvaged, he said. Some of the fourteeners, like Long's Peak, the last Davenport scaled, are outside of wilderness. A permit to use footage on peaks on national forest but outside of wilderness isn't as tough to acquire.

    Galland couldn't be reached for comment. An attorney for the filmmaker who has corresponded with the Forest Service didn't return a telephone call.

    Davenport said he wasn't surprise by the Forest Service decision. "I had my fingers crossed," he said.

    He said he didn't break any rules: "The film, which is finished, has no shots in it taken by a helicopter," he said.

    As for shooting film without a permit, he said there was no intent at the time to use it commercially.


    Doak said he is personally unaware of any criminal action against Davenport or Galland.

    It looks like Davenport more than likely did follow the proper channels more than could be assumed from the first article.

    Quote Originally Posted by from above
    The forest supervisor's statement raised a concern that Davenport's film might inspire more people to visit the fourteeners during winters - putting themselves at risk and placing more pressure on the peaks.
    BS rationale, indeed. It's not the FS's business to make risk choices for the users of the land. And it is laughable that they're worried about the impacts in the wintertime-- if I had written that statement, I'd have been talking about the already heavy summer impacts.

    What I can't quite understand is-- was the forest supervisor involved in the decision? Isn't this the domain of local ranger district permit administrators and their district rangers? Or, because it spanned multiple districts, did the decision get taken over by the Forest Supervisor's office? [shudder]

    edit: now I'm a little aggravated: IMHO, the decision was the right one. but I don't know if I can support the rationale stated by the WRNF, et al. Not much a fan of the "ends justify the means" approach. The FS has enough of a hard time keeping friends, as it is.
    Last edited by Lone Star; 05-03-2007 at 10:42 AM.

  13. #188
    BLOOD SWEAT STEEL Guest
    Loving our National Parks to death?



    Read it. Entire content is now available free online.

    http://www.cr.nps.gov/history/online...x/contents.htm

  14. #189
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    cb, co
    Posts
    3,648
    Good points Lonestar. I understand and respect your committment to protecting wilderness areas.

    I still believe that a movie would have had little to no impact on the already popular (in summer) 14ers. 2 websites, a half a dozen guidebooks, coffee-table books, etc have long since ensured their popularity. On the contrary, if anything the movie might have gotten a few people to tackle a peak in the winter instead of the summer, thereby reducing impacts. Still, while there are plenty of people on this board who could climb and ski a 14er, the general public just isn't skilled or equipped to do so. Also, he still gets to release the book- what's more likely to increase usage- a captioned glossy photo in a book or a 5 second clip of a descent on a mountain that a viewer might not recognize.

    More than anything else, I get fired up over this:
    Cows OK, Skiers bad
    photos OK, Video bad
    Shooting coyotes OK (that one's for you, Trackhead), chuting skiers bad

  15. #190
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Posts
    5,288
    What happened to saving the whales...

    If anything, Dav's quest is going out to a very environmentally friendly audience. The forest service is retarded.
    Live Free or Die

  16. #191
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    2,048
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbakerskier View Post
    So how come writers that go on trips in the wilderness then write about it don't have to pay for permits?????

    They bring just as much exposure to the area as a photographer for a filmer, and have just as big of an impact as well.......???????
    Thats a good question. If this aurgument is rooted in determining commercial use and potential future impact, then mbs has a solid point.

  17. #192
    Join Date
    Dec 2003
    Location
    funland
    Posts
    4,448
    I've enjoyed this discussion, minus hairy's delusional ramblings. Even when I don't agree, I'm happy to see that there are other people who are passionate about the subject. In Colorado, the exposure of all the 14ers is high, and what might be good policy for Wyoming may not make as much sense in CO. Using the "Authority of the Resource" to explain the agency's policy on this matter is probably more difficult with this issue than most other Wilderness regulations. I know that within my own group of friends and coworkers, the film vs. photo/private vs. commercial use policies are more hotly debated than any other Wilderness policy. (excluding grazing and mining, without the support of whose industries there would be no Wilderness Act)

    I remember when the shooting coyotes issue was in the news but I don't recall much else. As far as I understand, the state manages wildlife while the land agency manages habitat. the FS, for example, has little power or authority to decide what to do with "problem" wolves or bears on Forest Land. it's up to the game and fish department.

    if you're ever fed up the the cows, find a wilderness area where they graze sheep. that'll piss you off somethin' proper.

  18. #193
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Boulder
    Posts
    31
    From what I understand, things might have been different if Davenport would have applied for the permits before the skiing and fliming had actually taken place. I also heard that Davenport agreed to donate all of the proceeds from the film to the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative or other wilderness oriented charities, but they still denied him.

  19. #194
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    Fauntleroy
    Posts
    1,572

    Brilliant!

    Well said Lone Star.

  20. #195
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Posts
    671
    Quote Originally Posted by sl1 View Post
    From what I understand, things might have been different if Davenport would have applied for the permits before the skiing and fliming had actually taken place. I also heard that Davenport agreed to donate all of the proceeds from the film to the Colorado Fourteeners Initiative or other wilderness oriented charities, but they still denied him.
    That's the catch. I think filming permits are roughly $300/day. Considering Dav did a few peaks on the same day, his base expense just to hike and shoot would have been over $14,000. Then, tack on maybe $2,000 for days he planned to go but got denied by weather/snow conditions.

    Basically, he'd be starting way in the hole. He's not going to make much money off it anyway, and the fact that he offered to donate the proceeds to something worthy just goes to show how much they have their heads up their asses.

    There's got to be a way they can delineate between the crew of Mission Impossible VII shooting on Mount of the Holy Cross and a single skier and his videographer, treading on snow, leaving only tracks that'll melt or be covered in no time.

    And I can't help but think of all those Maroon Bells refrigerator magnets or postcards or placemats or calendars out there that cost nothing. This guy actually worked his ass off to pull off an impressive feat, and he's getting the shaft...
    or don't

  21. #196
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    Bellingham WA
    Posts
    1,934
    Quote Originally Posted by huckasoreass View Post
    That's the catch. I think filming permits are roughly $300/day. Considering Dav did a few peaks on the same day, his base expense just to hike and shoot would have been over $14,000. Then, tack on maybe $2,000 for days he planned to go but got denied by weather/snow conditions.

    Basically, he'd be starting way in the hole. He's not going to make much money off it anyway, and the fact that he offered to donate the proceeds to something worthy just goes to show how much they have their heads up their asses.

    There's got to be a way they can delineate between the crew of Mission Impossible VII shooting on Mount of the Holy Cross and a single skier and his videographer, treading on snow, leaving only tracks that'll melt or be covered in no time.

    And I can't help but think of all those Maroon Bells refrigerator magnets or postcards or placemats or calendars out there that cost nothing. This guy actually worked his ass off to pull off an impressive feat, and he's getting the shaft...
    EXACTLY!!!!!!

    Hey you guys how many ski flicks and photos do you think would get made if we went threw the proper channels, and paid for film permits?


    Starting off $16K in the hole before you pay for film and all your other expenses, will prety much gaurentee that you will LOSE MONEY.

    The ENITRE problem with this policey is that it was set in place for MAJOR productions, yet it blankets all productions....... doesnt make a lot of sence now does it?
    The Ski Journal theskijournal.com
    frequency TSJ frqncy.com

  22. #197
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by Meadow Skipper View Post
    Are you a complete idiot? James Watt was the Secretray of Interior in a Republican administration - Reagan to be exact. And one of the worst SoI's ever, which is saying a lot.
    I thought he was appointed by dems and carried over to the Reagan administration....my mistake, you are right, but worst ever?.....but that is park service stuff anyways...the forest service is ag and they harvest and sell, it's what they do....

    "A tree's a tree. How many more do you need to look at?"
    --Ronald Reagan

  23. #198
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    eastern sierra
    Posts
    880
    Quote Originally Posted by TyWebb View Post
    Thats a good question. If this aurgument is rooted in determining commercial use and potential future impact, then mbs has a solid point.
    my solid point is that the land managers, will spend all day in the office dtermining shit, and then they will decide they need more studies, and then some scoping meetings.....by the time anything is done, it is a new impact trend that will be evolving....commercial filming permits are a way to gather money, not a way to protect the resource, but it sounds better that way...

  24. #199
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Location
    Denver, Co.
    Posts
    1,423
    Quote Originally Posted by Lone Star View Post
    if you're ever fed up the the cows, find a wilderness area where they graze sheep. that'll piss you off somethin' proper.
    I saw them by the hundreds one summer day during a hike of Wetterhorn peak in the san juans. They friggin DESTROYED some tundra. Looked like the Boston Marathon had just come through. Cows in Capitol Creek, another huge problem. Like ther isnt enough BLM land for this type of activity???

  25. #200
    Join Date
    Sep 2004
    Location
    WYO
    Posts
    9,742
    Quote Originally Posted by mtbakerskier View Post
    EXACTLY!!!!!!

    Hey you guys how many ski flicks and photos do you think would get made if we went threw the proper channels, and paid for film permits?


    Starting off $16K in the hole before you pay for film and all your other expenses, will prety much gaurentee that you will LOSE MONEY.

    The ENITRE problem with this policey is that it was set in place for MAJOR productions, yet it blankets all productions....... doesnt make a lot of sence now does it?
    A side thought to this point... wouldn't companies like Salomon, Smith, Dakine, etc. (his sponsors) pony up money for these types of expenses associated with a project like this?

Posting Permissions

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