Wants to sell them back to the state-

In Nevada he said he didn’t know their purpose, “I don’t know the reason that the federal government owns such a large share of Nevada.”

Of course this man who never got his hands dirty doesn’t know about the public lands. Does he know anything except that the very rich should rule?

Read the article:   Romney To Nevadans: I Don’t Know ‘What The Purpose Is’ Of Public Lands (Hint: They Pump $1 Billion Into the State Economy). By Public Lands Team. ThinkProgress

Tagged with:
 
avatar
About The Author

Ralph Maughan

Dr. Ralph Maughan is professor emeritus of political science at Idaho State University with specialties in natural resource politics, public opinion, interest groups, political parties, voting and elections. Aside from academic publications, he is author or co-author of three hiking/backpacking guides, and he is President of the Western Watersheds Project.

61 Responses to Romney doesn’t know what public lands are for

  1. avatar Nancy says:

    O beautiful for spacious skies.
    Insecticided grains
    For strip-mined mountains, majesty.
    Above the asphalt plains.
    America, America,
    Man sheds his waste on thee.
    And hides the pines.
    With billboard signs.
    From sea to oily sea!

    -George Carlin

    That pretty much sums it up. Thank you George Carlin (where ever you are) A man who never had a problem spitting out the truth 🙂

  2. avatar somsai says:

    Romney isn’t alone. For many it’s hard to understand that federal lands actually belong to all the people in America not those who live closest to it. Most states are privately owned, look at the midwest and the east.

    But actually I think Romney fully understands, he’s a bright guy, just pandering. Romney is the ,001 percent. The rich don’t need public lands. If they want land they simply buy it.

    • avatar Ralph Maughan says:

      somsai,

      I think that is the idea of selling them. The billionaires will own the public lands. Some will strip mine them; some will restore wolves; some will build private towns for the 1%; some will have them for private hunting for them and their friends; some will try to clone mammoths and put them on their land.

      The one thing there won’t be is a place for anyone on this forum.

  3. avatar Mike says:

    Mitt sounds an awful lot like Obama.

  4. avatar Salle says:

    Yeah, and that’s not the only reason to be wary of this clown. He’s dangerously insidious with a phony persona that everyone should be aware of. I’ve dealt with this type before… “Not an honest breath doth he take.” (annonymous)

    I suggest that folks who are unfamiliar with this guy’s belief system take a closer look at the org he subscribes to and their operations and population control mechanisms… Not only do they have a creation myth, they also have their doomsday prophesies that they intend to see become fulfilled – by their doing if necessary. And they have a lot of money, real estate and legislative control in some western states, you know, the last few that still have wildlife and wild habitat for them but the states’ legislators and their cronies’ want to kill off for $$ and vindictive weenie-waving rights among their peers.

    • avatar william huard says:

      Multiple Mitt doesn’t do well when he’s away from a written script and teleprompter. Take it from someone who’s familiar with him. He will say ANYTHING.
      He views the environment the way he views poor people. Republicans have no solutions to healthcare reform, global warming, or abortion. They continue to pass a dishonest platform of voter fraud(ironic how the only people convicted of voter fraud are Republicans…) right to work legislation (attack on unions)etc. Romney is the face of the 1%

  5. avatar WM says:

    The scary part of this is that it appears he will be the R candidate for Pres. Young, successful, handsome and not totally a totally obnoxious boob as a public speaker, even if he offers no relevant content that Americans can relate to. We have been here before – the election of a President/VP for most non-thinking Americans (especially R’s) is a gut response. That is how we got Dan Quail as a VP, and the R’s picked Sarah P as a running mate for McCain.

    ?Quien es un hombre mas puesto, Obama o Romney?

    • avatar WM says:

      Sorry, bad speller this morning, “Apuesto” …..or “elegante” or “guapo.”

      We should be asking who is the smartest …”intelegente,” and the best leader… “el mejor lider.”

      • avatar Salle says:

        well then, the answer is obvious. Romney hasn’t a clue about fiduciary responsibility. If you’ve ever spent much time in SE ID or the capitals of either UT or ID you would be aware of the agenda and the general script they all follow.

  6. avatar Mike Post says:

    I know I should not do this on this blog (you guys are so toxic at times)….but if this guy gets the nomination then this life time Republican will have to vote for the other guy. As a life time “Reagan Republican” and a conservationist (yes, you can be both) I find myself more often than not shaking my head at my party’s conduct in this area and of being accused of being a LIBERAL by my own party because of it.

    • avatar Paul says:

      Mike,

      Many on this site may not believe it, but I actually considered myself a Republican leaning independent at one time. The GOP lost me when they started embracing the Sarah Palins and other anti-environmental nut jobs. They finally lost me for good with the rise of the Tea Party, and the emergence of the Scott Walkers of the world. They finally showed me their true colors. Of course when I looked at what I really believed I came to the conclusion that I am far more of a “liberal” than I ever was a “conservative.” Mike, your example is a perfect example of what is wrong with politics, especially with the GOP today. If you dare have a different opinion than the party rulers you are ostracized, or in your case are called a “liberal.” The libs sure are not perfect, but I can accept them far more than the Koch/Norquist/Murdoch controlled whack jobs that are ruining this country.

    • avatar Immer Treue says:

      If Reagan were running at this time, he would more than likely be labeled as a Liberal by those pulling the puppet strings.

      • avatar WM says:

        With due respect, Reagan’s good looks, ability to communicate and appealing personality were the dominant characteristics that lead to his election, along with the Hollywood packaging. In truth, he was surrounded by very smart and powerful (ruthless) people. First, Chief of staff, Don Regan (labeled as the prime minister), and later former Senator Howard Baker from TN. He and they understood the West. Let’s not forget at that time WY had Senators Alan Simpson, Malcolm Wallop and House Minority Whip, Dick Cheney. CO brought to the table, Reagan’s kitchen cabinet – Bill Coors, plus wacko Interior Sec. James Watt, EPA Administrator Ann Gorsuch, and her hubby at BLM, Bob Burford.

        Reagan was the appealing personality to voters, while the R party put in place the big personalities to start unraveling things. The same thing will happen with Romney if he is elected. Count on it.

        The danger is in who you put in charge of what, and count on the Mormon connection that will give Utah clout is never seen before in politics.

        • avatar mike post says:

          WM, what you say is generally correct however being a “Reagan Republican” is a state of mind, not a personality cult. If you ascribe to what he is famous for (accurate or not) then you are fiscally conservative, socially moderate and open to compromise in order to get things done. None of the above apply to today to the RP.

  7. avatar jdubya says:

    They are for this kind of stuff, right?

    “”I have spent my entire career thinking of myself as an advocate on behalf of public lands and acting for their protection,” said Johanna Wald, a veteran environmental attorney with the Natural Resources Defense Council. “I am now helping facilitate an activity on public lands that will have very significant environmental impacts. We are doing it because of the threat of climate change. It’s not an accommodation; it’s a change I had to make to respond to climate.”

    http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-solar-desert-20120205,0,7889582.story

    The irony, of course, is that the enviros wring their hands over these kind of compromises, dealing with politicians and power companies that profess global climate change is a farce.

    • avatar Alan says:

      What we need are solar panels on every rooftop, not 173,000 of them in the desert, miles from where the electricity is needed.
      But hey, if they did that how could they charge you for transmitting it?

      • avatar Salle says:

        this should be the prototype for new construction and retrofitting of most structures that need power from now on:

        http://www.aerotecture.com/

        Browse this site, these guys have the right idea for wind and solar power generation – especially for cities and towns. It would be nice if they could expand their distribution. Point source generation is best, generate it where it’s needed. These coal and other fossil fuel based power co.s have had their day and they made a big mess, now they can go away.

  8. avatar Ralph Maughan says:

    “Crony capitalism” — capitalism backed not by good products, service, or innovation, but by political favors is one the biggest dangers our country faces. In fact that is what Ayn Rand warned of. It wasn’t just big government. Adam Smith warned of the same thing.

    But that is what we have a lot of, and I’m afraid it is being bought in both parties, but right now the Republicans with their Koch Brothers, etc. are the biggest danger.

    • avatar JB says:

      For those that haven’t been paying attention. Stephen Colbert has been attempting to draw attention to the problem Ralph mentions by doing what he does best–making a mockery of our whole political process (see http://www.colbertsuperpac.com/).

      From my perspective, the most important issue associated with Romney has very little to do with his positions on the issues; in fact, government inherently resists “change”, no matter who is in charge (it took the Great Depression to motivate the last big change in our govt.). Rather, what worries me are the Supreme Court Justices that Romney’s party would appoint. Citizens United (the decision that in effect gives the “rights” of citizens to corporations) was brought to you by so-called “conservative” appointees. Add one more to this bunch, and the Supreme Court could reverse 80 years of common law, greatly reducing the role of the federal government (save for the courts, of course), which would have immense impacts, particularly in the area of natural resources and environmental law.

      • avatar Salle says:

        Stephen Colbert (and his boss, Jon Stewart) are doing a great job of it too, with the extra added bonus of being actually entertaining!

        I agree with you, JB, on the incremental manner that is traditionally inherent in DC and elsewhere with regard to the “powerholders” and their timeline considerations but I think that things are headed into a different ballfield this time, the stakes are much higher, remediation is not readily available as an option when things go wrong anymore…

        And I also agree with you about the SC composition and the implications of that.

    • avatar william huard says:

      Add the stupidity of right wing voters. According to the latest polls 37% of the Republican party STILL thinks Obama wasn’t born here……

      Global warming? These people still confuse weather patterns with warming of the planet.

      Evolution? You mean the earth is older than 5000 years?

      In thirty years when the glaciers have melted and India and China are fighting for water rights we will regret the inaction

  9. avatar Doryfun says:

    Colbert’s satire is sadly so sickeningly funny, as it dances around the truth twisting ways we unfortunately spend most of our lives trying to unravel.. Pardon my naivete, but for a long time now, I have wished we could just do away with the Supreme Justices. Why do we really need them? There must be a sound alternative. Can any of you jurisprudence types out there enlighten me, please.?

    I want to believe that in the end, most people will see the through the infected fog engulfing Romney. Enough people are fed up with the corruption of congress and divided nation ( due to obstructionism , trickle-up capitalism, and corporatocracy). But will enough folks be able to make a vote that reflects seeing past the phony baloney? I want to believe people are smarter than we all seem to want to give credit to ourselves.

    Unfortunately, based on our habit of not learning enough from history to make better decisions, the odds don’t seem to favor that. I wonder if a time will ever come when we can get rid of the Electoral College, and use only the Popular Vote? That seems to me a far better reflection of “we the people.”

    • avatar Salle says:

      Interesting, Doryfun. I always thought of the electoral college as a sort of “hold-over” of the English aristocracy and this little caveat in the rules of our game is a back door manner in which to secretly protect and sustain that element within the governing bodies of this nation. After all, this is how the Congressional element is able to usurp the will of the people with little consequence – when’s the last time the people successfully contested and reversed the decision of the electoral college?

      Maybe the founding fathers were concerned that they might eventually lament eschewing some of the luxuries of power afforded those at the top of the economic food chain.

  10. avatar CodyCoyote says:

    I campaigned for Obama here in Wyoming. Which in retrospect was futility, since Obama, too, has shown absolutely no awareness of the American West and prescience of the importance of ( or even existence of ) public lands. He is wholly a nurtured product of Inner City America and urbanity. Nothing west of Chicago’s burbs exists for him till Air Force One is on final approach into Southern California and a fundraiser. He is vaguely aware that his Interior Secretary Salazar has a ranch in some place called ” Colorado “.

    ” Didn’t I go to a convention there once, and get the Democratic nomination there …Colorado…Colorado… where have I heard that before ? ” he muses.

    All of which to my mind explains perfectly why the Dept. of Interior came back to Wyoming with a half-assed, halfhearted, wholly illegal resolution to ‘ that Wolf thing’ that was holding up Dan Ashe’s appointment as an undersec at DOI.

    ” Ken…this is Barack. Just calling to say I want you to end that wolf thing once and for all. We can’t let 1600 stray dogs out there on the frontier interfere with my plans. Take care of it any way you can , and do it now… ” ( click)

    Having said that , the apparition of Dubya Romney becoming President is far far worse for those of us in the West… for the reasons stated above and so many more. But one in particular. It is a dogmatic belief among the Mormons that the Earth and its resources are here to be exploited; used ; used up. This world is just a stepping stone to the Afterlife and does not matter in and of itself. If you doubt that belief is paramount , take a good look at Utah.

  11. avatar Doryfun says:

    CodyCoyote,

    I don’t think the Mormons have a monopoly in that exploitative, dominionist, stepping stone to Paradise attitude and direction. It is always a good justification for, and ignorance of not taking adequate responsibility in this world. It will all be taken care of in the next one.

    • avatar Salle says:

      they may not hold a monopoly on it but they sure have a strangle-hold on the legislatures of at least three RM states that have large tracts of public land. They are also looking to expand as much and as fast as possible. Some of them seem to think that the “go forth and multiply in mass quantities” thing is about to pay off.

      • avatar WM says:

        A room has four corners. In one corner is the Easter Bunny; in another is Santa Claus; in the third corner is a Mormon and in the fourth is a Jack Mormon. There is a pot of gold in the center of the room, destined to feed the little children of the local orphanage. The lights go out. Who snags the pot of gold for his own?

        drum roll………..

        The Jack Mormon gets the gold. The other three are just fabrications of our imagination.

    • avatar CodyCoyote says:

      I didn’t say the Saints had a monopoly. Extractosaurus rex is everywhere, scavenging . But with Mormons the lifestyle of consuming the world seems to be built in ( dogma )…the others have to acquire it .

      • avatar Elk275 says:

        Coyote, why should they care, it is simple. A good Mormon and his wife are reunited in heaven and God awards them another planet to populate and they become God of that planet. Everything is finite, what happens when all of the planets have been populated and destroyed by it’s inhabitats. Then GOD just makes more planets for the would be Gods and those Gods who have used up their planets.

  12. avatar Doryfun says:

    That Romney is so out of touch with public lands reality (questionably that is??) is related closely to the difference in how science and religion treats issues. Especially, as it applies to anything fish, wildlife, or environment. For a bit of levity in this department, go to Bill Maher’s diatribe/satire: Pretty funny for those of us who don’t succumb to faith based belief systems.
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MAFkJfsjI0A

    Warning: those here more religiously inclined may find this an assault on your sensibilities – proceed with caution.

    • avatar Salle says:

      I have to agree with the argument that Atheism is not a religion. I think that organized religion is a population control mechanism that uses guilt and fear to gain and stay in control. Thinking and believing are two very different cognitive functions.

      • avatar Paul says:

        Amen Salle:)

      • avatar Doryfun says:

        Salle,

        Not sure about the population control you mention, as “go forth a multiply” doesn’t seem to fit, though trying to influence people and garner flock size does. If I remember correctly, isn’t your background (education/profession) in archeology? Have you read any of Charles Redman’s books?

        An interesting take from him, after studying most every major culture from day one, is that in virtually every case, people end up exceeding their carrying capacities and thereby, serve as a self-limiting population control mechanism. Elites of each society gain control and power through developing belief systems that the masses buy into, so follow merrily along. Then when busy bee workers on the ground tell those in power that the land can not grow anymore, the elites pay no attention, and continue to make bad decisions. Presto. Exhaustion full-filled. Eventually, next culture.

        Professor Rufus Fears, in “Books that have made History, Books that can Change Your life” claims all societies/cultures that gain control, always lose it, and never think it will happen to them. The Fall Of Rome the epitome of such. I wonder if American Arrogance is gaining on the Rome Fiasco?

        • avatar Salle says:

          Yes Doryfun, my BA is in anthropology. No, I have not read any works from either author but my curiosity is raised and I will be looking for them at the library this week.

          Fears makes a good point. And you ask a good question to which I would say,it sure looks more like it every day.

          What I meant in regard to pop control is the actual governing control of the daily lives of the people including their thought processes and value systems which are usually invented by the controllers. The people are taught, by various methods from torture to seemingly more benign, conditioned to believe in something – usually something they can’t see or touch except through altered states of consciousness or under the influence of persuasion of some sort – rather than to think for themselves, exercising critical thinking. With your group functioning in fear of some severe negative consequence taking place in the physical realm and beyond, meted out by some unseen entity who is angry, fierce, omnipotent… you can get a lot out of them and set yourself up nicely for a time. Years ago a worldly woman said to me, “If you want to gain control over a large population of people in a short time, start a religion.” Guess that’s why there are so many flavors of each religion… select your flavor of fear to believe in. And that way, they can have enemies if no others are apparent.

          Indeed, the empires. There are two kinds of those; the ones that have fallen and the ones that are going to.

          I was loaned a book, Guns, Germs, and Steel; The Fates of Human Societies by Jared Diamond. I haven’t started it yet, have two other books to finish first. Basically, it’s an anthropologist’s investigation of how and why human groups developed differently, agrarian to industrial or other, on the different continents prior to intercontinental travel. Can hardly wait to get to it. And now I have these two you suggest. It’s okay, I like to read.

          • avatar WM says:

            ++….actual governing control of the daily lives of the people including their thought processes and value systems which are usually invented by the controllers…+

            One need look no further than the church sponsored Crusades of the 11th Century and the economic and political influence (and raw power) of the Catholic Church and the Pope.

            It still goes on today. Think of Muslims and the current influence of their religious leaders over politics in Iran, Iraq and elsewhere in the Middle East and North Africa. Nothing like a little fear of God or Allah to make you tow the line for a better afterlife, even if you haven’t got shit (or do) for a future in this one.

          • avatar Salle says:

            Well, I see it happening here in the good ol’ US of A everyday on the news. The “religious right”, as they are referred to, seem to think that this country should engage in passing into law and vehemently enforcing their own form of what I would call “christian sharia law”. It’s already in play if you watch Congress with a not necessarily close eye. Observe the current war on women and their bodies and their rights, anyone?

          • avatar Doryfun says:

            Salle,

            I read Guns & Steel awhile back. It is very good. The book by Redman is “Human Impact on Ancient Environments,” since you are shopping. I like like it even better. It is used as a text book at an OSU anthro class.
            But both are very good.

          • avatar Immer Treue says:

            The war on women and their bodies is mind numbing. The whole right to life thing… sure, that fetus has the right to life, and once its born, baby, as far as the “Right” is concerned, you’re on your own.

          • avatar wiliam huard says:

            Immer Treue-
            The right wing calls that freedom. Like drug testing welfare recipients and people on unemployment. Just more of that “small government” conservatism.
            Look at Karen Handel- she’s nasty. She looks like an unpleasant person.

  13. avatar Savebears says:

    Boy, it seems as if November is a long way a ways!

    • avatar Salle says:

      Unfortunately for all of us, it is.

      • avatar Doryfun says:

        Salle,

        I just thought of another book you might enjoy. A guest sent it to me after a trip. “After the Ice, A Global Human Hostory 20,000 – 5000 BC” by Steven Mithen. It is more technical than the other two, but more up your alley. Quite informative. I liked it.

        • avatar Doryfun says:

          Immer,

          Carl Sagan in his book Billions & Billions has an interesting chapter on abortion. Curiously, religion had little to do with the issue of abortion. There isn’t a word specifically prohibiting abortion in the Old or New Testaments.

          It began mostly with the medical profession. The AMA began lobbying against abortions for anyone except licensed physicians.

          As Sagan states: “Despite many claims to the contrary, life does not begin at conception: It is an unbroken chain that stretches back nearly to the origin of the Earth, 4.6 billion years ago. Nor does human life begin at concepition: It is an unbroken chain that dating back to the origin of our species, hundreds of thousands of years ago. Every human sperm and egg is, beyond the shadow of doubt, alive. They are not human beings, of course. However, it could be argued that neighter is a fertilized egg.”

          He goes on to argue, if it is murder to destroy a fertilized egg, then why not a sperm or egg? Quite humorously he goes on to mention that masturbation could therefore be considered mass murder.

          Roe vs Wade is based on the 1973 Supreme Court decision of 6 month for that determination of when life begins. Fortunately, that is also supported by science in terms of that is when thought begins.

          1998 is the copyright of Sagans book. Though demographic poles reflected the pro-choice for most Americans back then, it was Pat Robertson, the 1992 Republican candidate whom urged his followers to support the message that killing a human zygote is murder, thus a huge influence of his political organization.

          Looking at the Santorum’s of today, (and the Riligious Right in general), not much has changed and we seem bound not to learn from history and apply non-science, faith based applications to politics. So much for separation of church and state.

          The abortion controversy surrounding Santorum’s wife further demonstrates his extremist views, and that of the religious right. Not to mention some hypocrasy baggage from that crowd.

          http://jezebel.com/5873158/rick-santorums-anti+abortion-stance-would-have-killed-his-own-wife

          By the way, Billions & Billions covers abortion in much more depth, but contains a ton of additional really interesting information in various fields. Such a loss when he passed on.

  14. avatar Alan Gregory says:

    Duh, public lands? But what about my proppity rawts?

    • avatar Salle says:

      I went to a public hearing on the winter use program for YNP the other night and I heard three messages from the comment-givers…

      a) It’s our park and we should be able to use in any way we feel like using it.

      b) If you don’t let us use the park as much as and in whatever way we want, yo are taking money out of my pocketbook.

      c) screw the wildlife, they have all that space out there, they aren’t impacted as you claim and you’re just trying to take the ark and our income away from us with this bogus claim.

      Nice, huh?

      Public hearings in the NRM states go like this regularly. I leaned over to one park employee and mentioned that this is what you get when civics is not a curricular consideration in our schools anymore, a couple decades of that and this is what you get. He agreed.

      My favorite from a Roadless Initiative hearing back in the late 1990’s: “…and don’t you tell us that the BLM has been taken over by the federal gov’mint!”

      yikes.

  15. avatar Salle says:

    Santorum In Idaho: Sell Off Public Lands To The Private Sector

    http://thinkprogress.org/green/2012/02/16/426828/santorum-in-idaho-sell-off-public-lands-to-the-private-sector/

    ” But there’s a lot of land out there that is land that can and should be managed by stewards who care about that land. I believe the land is there to serve man, not man there to serve the land. If we turn that, obviously, BLM, they just don’t — look, we’re not going to have the resources to manage this land correctly. The federal government doesn’t care about it, they don’t care about this land. They don’t live here, they don’t care about it, we don’t care about it in Washington. It’s just flyover country for most of the bureaucrats in Washington, D.C.

    We need to get it back into the hands of the states and even to the private sector. And we can make money doing it, we can make money doing it by selling it. So I believe that this is critically important.”

    What Mr. “‘Sanctormonius’ of outerspace theology” doesn’t get is that this land was never included in state ownership. These public lands, particularly west of the original 13 colonies, were never belonging to the states at any time in the history of the nation.

    ” 1780 – New York ceded all western land claims to new U.S. Government. Virginia surrendered vast region north of Ohio River in 1781. Massachusetts ceded all western claims in 1784. Connecticut followed in 1786. South Carolina in 1787. North Carolina in 1790. Georgia in 1802. All these areas, collectively, constituted the public domain. [In an effort to appease Maryland and secure unanimous ratification of the Articles of Confederation, New York relinquished its interests to the lands west of the Appalachian Mountains. Maryland signed the Articles of Confederation.]

    The Congress of the Confederation called upon all the states to relinquish their claims to the western country and pledged itself to administering the lands for the common benefit of the nation.” (http://www.nplnews.com/toolbox/history/publiclandhistory.htm)

    • avatar Paul says:

      Salle,

      This is the same nut that said a pregnancy after a rape is a “broken gift” when attempting to explain his whacko beliefs about contraception and abortion. The fact that people like this have a national audience is terrifying. This sounds like the same crap that was being pushed in the early 20th century during the initial years of our national park system.

      • avatar Salle says:

        There always seems to be a revival of desperate arguments that make no sense except to crazy people.

        (“We don’t kill our people… no government in the world kills its people, unless it’s led by a crazy person,” Assad said. Interview w/Barbara Walters 12/7/11) Just a reference of the kind of double standard that comes out of the corporatocracy.

    • avatar mikarooni says:

      Santorum, Pandorum, what’s the difference?

  16. avatar Salle says:

    U.S. Forest Service Visitor’s Report Shows Strong Continued Economic Impact and Customer Satisfaction of America’s National Forests and Grasslands

    http://www.usda.gov/wps/portal/usda/!ut/p/c5/04_SB8K8xLLM9MSSzPy8xBz9CP0os_gAC9-wMJ8QY0MDpxBDA09nXw9DFxcXQ-cAA_1wkA5kFaGuQBXeASbmnu4uBgbe5hB5AxzA0UDfzyM_N1W_IDs7zdFRUREAZXAypA!!/dl3/d3/L2dJQSEvUUt3QS9ZQnZ3LzZfUDhNVlZMVDMxMEJUMTBJQ01IMURERDFTODU!/?printable=true&contentidonly=true&contentid=2011%2f08%2f0342.xml

  17. avatar Salle says:

    Collaboration builds workable lands policy, Idaho Sen. Crapo, U.S. Forest Service chief say

    http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/02/21/2002982/collaboration-builds-workable.html

    “The Forest Service is writing its planning rules in a manner that seeks to bring people together early so there is less conflict at the end of the process. Crapo said the more successful projects like the collaboratives are, the more trust there will be on all sides for giving managers more flexibility. Not everyone is on board in Idaho. Gary Macfarlane of the Friends of the Clearwater environmental group in North Idaho fears that local collaborative groups will make the decisions and leave out the rest of the public.

    “I oppose agency efforts to limit democratic public involvement,” Macfarlane said.”

    Read more here: http://www.idahostatesman.com/2012/02/21/2002982/collaboration-builds-workable.html#storylink=cpy

Calendar

February 2012
S M T W T F S
« Jan   Mar »
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
26272829  

Quote

‎"At some point we must draw a line across the ground of our home and our being, drive a spear into the land and say to the bulldozers, earthmovers, government and corporations, “thus far and no further.” If we do not, we shall later feel, instead of pride, the regret of Thoreau, that good but overly-bookish man, who wrote, near the end of his life, “If I repent of anything it is likely to be my good behaviour."

~ Edward Abbey

%d bloggers like this: