Results 176 to 200 of 221
Thread: Davenport=denied
-
05-02-2007, 10:26 PM #176
475 and closing in on 1/3 of the way....
-
05-02-2007, 10:26 PM #177
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.
-
05-02-2007, 10:27 PM #178
-
05-02-2007, 10:28 PM #179
-
05-02-2007, 10:29 PM #180Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Boise, ID
- Posts
- 217
-
05-02-2007, 10:33 PM #181Registered User
- Join Date
- Mar 2007
- Location
- Boise, ID
- Posts
- 217
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.
-
05-02-2007, 10:34 PM #182
-
05-03-2007, 07:10 AM #183
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
-
05-03-2007, 07:17 AM #184
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
-
05-03-2007, 07:21 AM #185
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
-
05-03-2007, 08:34 AM #186
-
05-03-2007, 10:38 AM #187
updated article
With bold highlights added to some of the more interesting, relevant sections:
Originally Posted by Aspen Times
It looks like Davenport more than likely did follow the proper channels more than could be assumed from the first article.
Originally Posted by from above
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.
-
05-03-2007, 11:01 AM #188BLOOD 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
-
05-03-2007, 11:23 AM #189
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
-
05-03-2007, 11:38 AM #190
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
-
05-03-2007, 11:57 AM #191thank you very little
- Join Date
- Jun 2006
- Posts
- 2,051
-
05-03-2007, 11:59 AM #192
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.
-
05-03-2007, 12:19 PM #193
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.
-
05-03-2007, 12:19 PM #194
Brilliant!
Well said Lone Star.
-
05-03-2007, 02:47 PM #195
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
-
05-03-2007, 05:03 PM #196
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?
-
05-03-2007, 08:15 PM #197
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
-
05-03-2007, 08:18 PM #198
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...
-
05-03-2007, 08:23 PM #199
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???
-
05-03-2007, 08:38 PM #200
Bookmarks