Post by: coastal ghost hunter on October 17, 2013, 02:21:57 PM
Post by: X-Force on October 17, 2013, 02:45:46 PM
Post by: coastal ghost hunter on October 17, 2013, 02:53:05 PM
Post by: asl20bball on October 17, 2013, 03:00:10 PM
Post by: bowbuild on October 17, 2013, 08:48:09 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 17, 2014, 07:38:24 PM
Sen Murry introduced a bill for Wild Olympics today.
Post by: blackdog on January 18, 2014, 08:37:42 AM
Post by: blackdog on January 18, 2014, 08:42:23 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 18, 2014, 09:16:34 AM
I am opposed. !20,000 +acres of wilderness on Forest Service ground, nearly every river on the peninsula becomes wild and scenic. It does not restore access to the Dosewallops, or to the "bridge to nowhere" on Sam's River. It rewards the bad behavior of the Washington DC and Wall Street special interests that now own our economy. Makes antigunners Dicks and Murray heroes with the antihunters. Yea I oppose this worthless Congressional piece of crap. :bdid::yeah: :bdid: As I did with the wild sky land grab. Those who sit at desks in Seattle , DC, or anywhere else just love to "protect" things and restrict access to others as any good nanny state would. They seem to NEVER get "enough". This country would be better off if our POS elected morons would work on the real issues instead of imagining new ones to throw our (not their) money at.
He added amendments to keep existing roads in place, enhance fire-fighting capability and assure protection for private landowners.
A judge CAN take that out with the stroke of a pen.
AND no editorializing in this fair and balanced reporting......
"Don’t hold your breath. The bill goes to the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Hastings has almost never seen any piece of federal land that he doesn’t want to log, or mine, or drill, or turn over to state or private ownership."
Americans are systematically advocating, legislating, and voting away each others rights. Support all user groups and quit losing opportunity.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 12:31:35 PM
Hastings has almost never seen any piece of federal land that he doesn’t want to log, or mine, or drill, or turn over to state or private ownership."
Actually Hastings is the prime sponsor of a bill that would create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in WA and other states under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. So he is not totally anti fed land management.
Post by: snowpack on January 18, 2014, 12:53:10 PM
I think the road thing is a trap. They say the roads will stay for the creation. But wilderness boundaries and wild scenic boundaries will run up to the road buffer zones. So as soon as part of the road washes out it will be near impossible to repair/redirect even a small portion due to wilderness/WS rules, FS road budgets and all kinds of lawsuits the greenies will file. So the USFS will just have to place boulders near the closest wide spot and however much road beyond is now shutdown. I wouldn't put it past the greenies to stuff culverts with hay or duff to speed it up.
He added amendments to keep existing roads in place, enhance fire-fighting capability and assure protection for private landowners.
A judge CAN take that out with the stroke of a pen.
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 18, 2014, 01:03:16 PM
That was a DIRECT quote of the PI story bigtexHastings has almost never seen any piece of federal land that he doesn’t want to log, or mine, or drill, or turn over to state or private ownership."
Actually Hastings is the prime sponsor of a bill that would create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in WA and other states under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. So he is not totally anti fed land management.
Post by: bigtex on January 18, 2014, 02:19:42 PM
You know them well :chuckle: :bash:That was a DIRECT quote of the PI story bigtexHastings has almost never seen any piece of federal land that he doesn’t want to log, or mine, or drill, or turn over to state or private ownership."
Actually Hastings is the prime sponsor of a bill that would create the Manhattan Project National Historical Park in WA and other states under the jurisdiction of the National Park Service. So he is not totally anti fed land management.
I know I saw that after I posted. :chuckle:
Hastings has introduced several bills to create the new NHP. He even added an amendment to the 2014 2014 National Defense Authorization Act to create the new NHP/
Due to failure of support from the Senate, the expected final 2014 National Defense Authorization Act does not include two House-passed amendments to the 2014 National Defense Authorization Act authored by Congressman Doc Hastings to establish the Manhattan Project National Park. A statement from Congressman Doc Hastings, Chairman of the House Natural Resources Committee, follows:
“I’m disappointed, but not deterred. To all the advocates for this Park: you’ve given great energy, enthusiasm and expertise to this effort to date, and I know that will continue until our goal is accomplished, which I am confident it will ultimately be."
http://hastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364192 (http://hastings.house.gov/news/documentsingle.aspx?DocumentID=364192)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 08:42:53 AM
AND no editorializing in this fair and balanced reporting......
"Don’t hold your breath. The bill goes to the House Natural Resources Committee, chaired by Rep. Doc Hastings, R-Wash.
Hastings has almost never seen any piece of federal land that he doesn’t want to log, or mine, or drill, or turn over to state or private ownership."
Why Joel Connolly didn't resist his urge to editorialize and stick to a news piece is beyond me. Very unprofessional in my view
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 09:57:47 AM
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 10:01:27 AM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 19, 2014, 10:06:37 AM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 10:19:00 AM
Post by: ouchfoss on January 19, 2014, 02:29:58 PM
I just read something the other day that talked about how horribly in debt the NPS is and the fact that they cant afford to keep certain places, trails and other things open so more than likely they will be permanently closed. :bash:
I am %100 opposed.
Post by: snowpack on January 19, 2014, 03:05:47 PM
I've heard they want to buy the land so they can sell it to the park as a 'willing seller'. Then they can increase the size of the Queets corridor and start making a park corridor on the Clearwater too.
I don't know how much it matches with the new bill, but the old proposal had something to do with authorizing the park to buy up the willing seller lands.
Post by: Sitka_Blacktail on January 19, 2014, 03:28:19 PM
Most who have weighed in so far on this thread are against Wild Olympics, but there are many sportsmen who are for it. Here is one group who is.
http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/ (http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/)
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 03:35:59 PM
Wild Olympics is a bad idea all the way around. They seem to think that this is something NEEDED when in fact there is nothing wrong with the proposed land in the first place.
I just read something the other day that talked about how horribly in debt the NPS is and the fact that they cant afford to keep certain places, trails and other things open so more than likely they will be permanently closed. :bash:
I am %100 opposed.
If this bill passes the land involved (for wilderness areas at least) is USFS land, not NPS land.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 03:37:44 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 08:09:34 PM
There was an article in the newspaper the other day saying that nature conservancy was trying to buy more land in the Queets and Clearwater area. They have Paul Allen offering to match funds with them for purchases.
I've heard they want to buy the land so they can sell it to the park as a 'willing seller'. Then they can increase the size of the Queets corridor and start making a park corridor on the Clearwater too.
I don't know how much it matches with the new bill, but the old proposal had something to do with authorizing the park to buy up the willing seller lands.
The land in question in the bill is all USFS lands, which no one is suggesting be sold to the Nature Conservatory, much less USFS->NC->NPS
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:30:33 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 08:31:25 PM
All the major rivers on the Olympic Peninsula would be designated W&S on the publically owned lands USPS
You sure about that?
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:37:31 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:39:54 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:44:00 PM
:chuckle:
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 08:45:01 PM
I don't see more public land as a bad thing, as long as it isn't locked up in a park. Most private timberland in Grays Harbor County that I grew up hunting has been turned into pay to hunt land. So more public land to hunt is a good thing in my eyes. It's one of the things I appreciate when I hunt the NE corner of the State, the national Forests over there. In fact the lock up of private land on the west side is the major reason I started hunting the NE corner three years ago. I know several others who have done the same thing.
Most who have weighed in so far on this thread are against Wild Olympics, but there are many sportsmen who are for it. Here is one group who is.
http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/ (http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/)
I don't think there is much in the way of purchases involved in this present bill, mostly it is an designation change of Federally held land,
(by the Post Office according to Black Dog)
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 08:46:23 PM
United States Park Service silly!
:chuckle:
What's that?
Did you mean the National Park Service? Universally referred to as the NPS?
Post by: npaull on January 19, 2014, 08:47:38 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:47:56 PM
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 08:53:30 PM
Post by: Knocker of rocks on January 19, 2014, 09:26:37 PM
Post by: snowpack on January 19, 2014, 09:32:42 PM
I've had bad experiences with NPS rangers while hunting on USFS land so I may have a mental block with them.They seem to go through phases every few years. Like you get three or four years and never see them outside of the park. Then the next few years they are even helpful driving around USFS land and tell you where animals are. Then you get a stretch where they hassle people about having maps/compasses and knowing where the boundary line is. One year they were even driving behind the gates on DNR land and shooting into the trees to scare 'their' elk back into the park.
Post by: bigtex on January 19, 2014, 09:36:41 PM
NPS LE Rangers can be very different. You have your group that are basically like WDFW Officers and love to hunt, fish, etc and are basically game wardens working for the NPS. Then you have your group which you would call your typical "parkie" and don't want you to pick a flower.I've had bad experiences with NPS rangers while hunting on USFS land so I may have a mental block with them.They seem to go through phases every few years. Like you get three or four years and never see them outside of the park. Then the next few years they are even helpful driving around USFS land and tell you where animals are. Then you get a stretch where they hassle people about having maps/compasses and knowing where the boundary line is. One year they were even driving behind the gates on DNR land and shooting into the trees to scare 'their' elk back into the park.
Snowpack, I think one of the reason you see the different "phases" is because NPS LE has a very high turnover rate in WA. You don't see them staying in WA for very long. So chances are the LE Ranger you saw 4 years ago doesn't even work in WA now.
Post by: blackdog on January 19, 2014, 09:37:23 PM
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 20, 2014, 01:40:15 PM
I don't see more public land as a bad thing, as long as it isn't locked up in a park. Most private timberland in Grays Harbor County that I grew up hunting has been turned into pay to hunt land. So more public land to hunt is a good thing in my eyes. It's one of the things I appreciate when I hunt the NE corner of the State, the national Forests over there. In fact the lock up of private land on the west side is the major reason I started hunting the NE corner three years ago. I know several others who have done the same thing.
Most who have weighed in so far on this thread are against Wild Olympics, but there are many sportsmen who are for it. Here is one group who is.
http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/ (http://www.sportsmenforwildolympics.org/)
I don't think there is much in the way of purchases involved in this present bill, mostly it is an designation change of Federally held land,
(by the Post Office according to Black Dog)
This is from that site. Has anyone here actually read the Wilderness act? In black and white it says this is NOT allowed......... and you trust them?
And if they do manage to do it ,it will only take one judge to change it or....
Snowpack
"I think the road thing is a trap. They say the roads will stay for the creation. But wilderness boundaries and wild scenic boundaries will run up to the road buffer zones. So as soon as part of the road washes out it will be near impossible to repair/redirect even a small portion due to wilderness/WS rules, FS road budgets and all kinds of lawsuits the greenies will file. So the USFS will just have to place boulders near the closest wide spot and however much road beyond is now shutdown. I wouldn't put it past the greenies to stuff culverts with hay or duff to speed it up. "
Post by: steen on January 20, 2014, 05:31:17 PM
Post by: bigtex on January 20, 2014, 05:41:05 PM
I vote no on anything new. There are always hidden agenda things that are never mentioned and we lose every time. They don't even have enough money to take care of the parks they have now.....and then increase them??? Just like someone else said, voting rights away.
This isn't a park
Post by: Elkaholic daWg on January 21, 2014, 01:43:33 PM
I vote no on anything new. There are always hidden agenda things that are never mentioned and we lose every time. They don't even have enough money to take care of the parks they have now.....and then increase them??? Just like someone else said, voting rights away.
This isn't a park
Understood. So are you saying there is plenty of money for USFS to fix any washouts on these 2200+ miles of roads while dealing with the added red tape that Wilderness designation would bring about, Even though a hand picked judge would probably make it a moot point
Post by: bigtex on January 21, 2014, 02:21:34 PM
No, I said it's not a park. That's all I said....Understood. So are you saying there is plenty of money for USFS to fix any washouts on these 2200+ miles of roads while dealing with the added red tape that Wilderness designation would bring about, Even though a hand picked judge would probably make it a moot pointI vote no on anything new. There are always hidden agenda things that are never mentioned and we lose every time. They don't even have enough money to take care of the parks they have now.....and then increase them??? Just like someone else said, voting rights away.This isn't a park