Clan Riffster Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 That someday soon we may have more properties owned by the Feds,, where we can't play? It sucks that those lands might be closed to caching, but it beats the heck out of having them deforested. Quote
+gpsfun Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I don't believe the article is entirely clear. For example, during the Bush era, there was a proposal in the works to designate additional Federal lands for timber production to fund public schools in areas where the tax base is insufficient to keep schools open. It would be good to see an objective explanation of the article. Quote
+Mom-n-Andy Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 President Bush opened up some federal lands for development. President Obama would like to return those lands to the protected wilderness status that they had prior to the Bush administration. Quote
+Mom-n-Andy Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 Here is an alternative article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/12/23/wilderness-rules-obama-pl_n_800977.html And here is a Q&A from a government web site: http://www.doi.gov/news/pressreleases/loader.cfm?csModule=security/getfile&pageid=116069 Quote
+Sol seaker Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I'd rather have forests that we can't cache in than no forests for our children and grandchildren. Quote
+TheLoneGrangers Posted December 26, 2010 Author Posted December 26, 2010 the article didn't make alot of sense, or perhaps, I have been having a few to many drinkss Quote
+Viajero Perdido Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I'd rather have forests that we can't cache in than no forests for our children and grandchildren. Black and white logic. I'd rather have forests that we can cache in. And for the most part, that's what we have. (Speaking for Canada here; come visit sometime.) Quote
+captnemo Posted December 26, 2010 Posted December 26, 2010 I'd rather have forests that we can't cache in than no forests for our children and grandchildren. Black and white logic. I'd rather have forests that we can cache in. And for the most part, that's what we have. (Speaking for Canada here; come visit sometime.) +1 I am tried of going out into the back country only to find that some bureucrat has decided that I can no longer go there and declared the area a wilderness. Most of the new wilderness areas do not meet the original purpose of the original wilderness act. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.