Login required to started new threads

Login required to post replies

Prev Next
Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land
Quote | Reply
Since when do we want the feds in control of 90 percent of the land? Sure some parks are nice but really how about some of the other states try having the vast majority of your land controlled by the feds... I am not a trump fan but he got it right here.
Edit: justed checked it's not 90 percent haha but crazy how much of the west is federally controlled compared to the east.... Google the maps
Utah has like 57 percent Fedreal, and thank the great feds for protecting beautiful Nevada! 81 percent. It's crazy...
Last edited by: Cookiebuilder: Dec 9, 17 19:50
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I know, right?!
We don’t want it controlled by the feds. They’ll use the land as a secret base to wage thier war on Christmas. It’ll be much better off in the hands of that uranium mining company. Those guys will give us all the jobs because uranium will trickle down the grand escalator staircase tax free!!! And also, the second amendment.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think you need to reread his article and his comments in the following section, that is not what he advocated. You might want to change your title, shows your extreme bias in the discussion and no one is going to want to talk to you with a flat earther mentality..
Last edited by: monty: Dec 9, 17 20:13
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [vo3 max] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
vo3 max wrote:
I know, right?!
We don’t want it controlled by the feds. They’ll use the land as a secret base to wage thier war on Christmas. It’ll be much better off in the hands of that uranium mining company. Those guys will give us all the jobs because uranium will trickle down the grand escalator staircase tax free!!! And also, the second amendment.

Re-soures:
We need more Uranium for more warheads. We also need more Christmas trees and wood for our Ikea disposable furniture and the nice open furnace in our livingroom.

Re-human locomotion:
We need to be able to drive everywhere.
We ride and run indoors or along major roads anyway.

Dim-Sum:
We crazy monkeys do not really care about our environment or the planet.
We only care about ourselves and our perceived needs and wants.

"The only way to protect ourselves from our own madness and insanity is Sarcasm".

This Thread belongs into the Lavender Room.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wrong forum?

Feds took that land from the natives by force. So you are saying they should give it back to the tribes? Oh no actually that's not what you are saying..... ;)
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cookiebuilder wrote:
Since when do we want the feds in control of 90 percent of the land? Sure some parks are nice but really how about some of the other states try having the vast majority of your land controlled by the feds... I am not a trump fan but he got it right here.
Edit: justed checked it's not 90 percent haha but crazy how much of the west is federally controlled compared to the east.... Google the maps
Utah has like 57 percent Fedreal, and thank the great feds for protecting beautiful Nevada! 81 percent. It's crazy...

Have you looked at the Federal land in Nevada? What would you do with it? Ever heard of the dust bowl? BLM is more than happy to lease the land for mineral rights. The land can't be grazed effectively. Cattle over-graze the area very quickly and then you are left with woody underbrush that isn't suitable habitat for anything but a camel.

Ya the Feds could sell it to the highest bidder. It wouldn't be worth much and then tax payers would get stuck with the cleanup costs after some dumb-ass goes bankrupt. Wyoming is the perfect example. A billion or two for coal reclamation. It costs thousands of dollars a piece to cap and seal the 4000 thousand abandoned coal-bed methane wells. When world demand for oil slows down in the mid-2020s, I suspect there will be thousands of oil wells from the fracking boom that get abandoned and those cost roughly 10 times as much to seal as the coal-bed methane wells.

http://trib.com/...42-6556405eed53.html

http://trib.com/...88-77326b7471d2.html


I suggest you look up the Dunning Kruger effect.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply


Sometimes you should steer clear of Federal land in Nevada...

DFL > DNF > DNS
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cookiebuilder wrote:
Since when do we want the feds in control of 90 percent of the land? Sure some parks are nice but really how about some of the other states try having the vast majority of your land controlled by the feds... I am not a trump fan but he got it right here.
Edit: justed checked it's not 90 percent haha but crazy how much of the west is federally controlled compared to the east.... Google the maps
Utah has like 57 percent Fedreal, and thank the great feds for protecting beautiful Nevada! 81 percent. It's crazy...

Did you disagree with Dan in the comments section of his piece? Dan made some comments to clarify himself. I know there are people who are hard to reason with here; yet, Dan is not like that. Though if you didn't disagree there publicly I can understand why because you will get flaming irrational responses from the leftists.

Lavender room material?

Maybe Dan could avoid lavender room opinion pieces on his front page; yet, it is his site...

Indoor Triathlete - I thought I was right, until I realized I was wrong.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I "thought" the beauty of ST was..............you didn't need to pick a political side.

Not even a slippery slope. It's a cliff.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I think Dan is saying that, regarding open space, private entities don't always have the best interests of society at heart. And private entities don't have the best interests of human beings that love the outdoors, with some triathletes being a subset of that group.

Have you ever heard of the parable of "the tragedy of the commons"?

When I was ignorant, I was not a fan of US and calif. zoning and land use laws (I used to live in calif).

But, take just one trip to a non-tourist Mexican city of a decent size. You will come back and kiss every zoning law on the books ...

No kidding.

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Last edited by: DarkSpeedWorks: Dec 10, 17 12:14
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Hello Cookiebuilder and All,

I think you misunderstood .... I think he said Slowtwitch should control 90 percent of California land.

Cheers, Neal

+1 mph Faster
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
It may not be 90 percent overall. But Utah does have the highest percentage of federal land in the USA. Following what Teddy Roosevelt did is a wonderful cause. It does not mean it should be used as the only justification for what is no different than eminent domain.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Dilbert] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Dilbert wrote:
Wrong forum?

Feds took that land from the natives by force. So you are saying they should give it back to the tribes? Oh no actually that's not what you are saying..... ;)

this forum is just fine. this is square inside what we do. laws protecting cyclists on the road are politically charged, and are just fine here in this forum. likewise the push-pull on when and whether we'll be able to run and ride our bikes offroad.

i'm thankful for the OP that he brought this topic here. let's have at it. just, let's have at it in a way that is not reflexively political. if everyone can handle that.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [DarkSpeedWorks] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
I think Dan is saying that, regarding open space, private entities don't always have the best interests of society at heart. And private entities don't have the best interests of human beings that love the outdoors, with some triathletes being a subset of that group.

So who is best to decide what to do with a state's land? The people who live in the state or a politician in DC making decisions to score brownie points with a wing of his party, which is the minority party in the state affected?

Escalante could have a fantastic system of MTB trails. Instead we are stuck riding on dirt roads because Sierra Club elitists don't want their horses spooked. The everyman has a mountain bike. Who the fuck owns a horse?
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Arch Stanton wrote:
DarkSpeedWorks wrote:
I think Dan is saying that, regarding open space, private entities don't always have the best interests of society at heart. And private entities don't have the best interests of human beings that love the outdoors, with some triathletes being a subset of that group.


So who is best to decide what to do with a state's land? The people who live in the state or a politician in DC making decisions to score brownie points with a wing of his party, which is the minority party in the state affected?

Escalante could have a fantastic system of MTB trails. Instead we are stuck riding on dirt roads because Sierra Club elitists don't want their horses spooked. The everyman has a mountain bike. Who the fuck owns a horse?

You'd rather that land be owned by a company that mines it, turns it into a cesspool (see WV) and then walks away? That sounds much better. The people who live in the state aren't the ones making decisions...

The point is, ladies and gentleman, that speed, for lack of a better word, is good. Speed is right, Speed works. Speed clarifies, cuts through, and captures the essence of the evolutionary spirit.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Nightdeath4223] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Nightdeath4223 wrote:
But Utah does have the highest percentage of federal land in the USA.

Incorrect. Nevada has the highest percentage. Utah is a distant 2nd.

And why shouldn't these western states have a high percentage of federal land? They were 100% federal land before they became states (and 100% indian country before that).
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I'm not a member, but very, very, very very few Sierra club members are trail horse owners or riders ... far more are MTB riders ...

Advanced Aero TopTube Storage for Road, Gravel, & Tri...ZeroSlip & Direct-mount, made in the USA.
DarkSpeedWorks.com.....Reviews.....Insta.....Facebook

--
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Slowman] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
I really don't know much about any of this, ( I hoped someone smarter than me would jump on and back me up haha) I just thought it would be a fun thread. I think alot of utah is frustrated at the previous presidents making large areas of land monuments, without much input from us frankly kinda of last minute in obamas case. We would love them kept open for everyone, but also used to make money in some areas. the feds are so overkill the way they run things, and then so hard to change if we want to do more with a area and monument status does not mean everyone can enjoy it.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Arch Stanton] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Arch Stanton wrote:
Escalante could have a fantastic system of MTB trails. Instead we are stuck riding on dirt roads because Sierra Club elitists don't want their horses spooked. The everyman has a mountain bike. Who the fuck owns a horse?

i'll agree with you if you ask about the nonsensical view that MTB creates less havoc on a train than do horses. who the fuck owns a horse? i own 4. my horses do much more harm on the trails than my MTB do (i ride both on the same trails), and horses aren't native either (not even my "wild" mustangs).

but to the point, i didn't know you were familiar with escalante. you have to earn it, but after the long drive you're rewarded with a world class restaurant in the middle of nowhere (hell's backbone grill) and terrific groad riding north and south of hwy 12.

i'm not fathoming your beef, tho. i don't care who the custodian of the land is: county, state, fed. i don't care if it's natl forest, blm, monument. i don't see the need to drill on it, or to mine uranium. i just want access to it and i HAVE access to it now, for cycling. i want it preserved. before it was a monument it was checkered with oil leases. if you're familiar with GSE you know how spectacular it is. no reason to drill or mine there.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Cookiebuilder] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Cookiebuilder wrote:
I really don't know much about any of this, ( I hoped someone smarter than me would jump on and back me up haha) I just thought it would be a fun thread. I think alot of utah is frustrated at the previous presidents making large areas of land monuments, without much input from us frankly kinda of last minute in obamas case. We would love them kept open for everyone, but also used to make money in some areas. the feds are so overkill the way they run things, and then so hard to change if we want to do more with a area and monument status does not mean everyone can enjoy it.

Looks like in California the issue is taken care of, as all the public land goes up in flames.

Should make it easier to privatize as it is not gonna be pretty anymore to ride mtb or hike through for the immediate future.

Reminds me of the accidental burning down of the Amazon Rain Forest which conveniently created new settling and farmland.

What a nightmare.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [Toby] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Toby wrote:
You'd rather that land be owned by a company that mines it, turns it into a cesspool (see WV) and then walks away? That sounds much better. The people who live in the state aren't the ones making decisions...

And now the mining companies don't need to keep a fund to clean up pollution after the mine is abandoned.

https://lasvegassun.com/...p-rule-after-indust/

So buy the land, mine it, turn it into a wastedump and walkaway. When dams break or wastewater pollutes the ground water the people responsible for it can't be touched.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [windschatten] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
windschatten wrote:
Looks like in California the issue is taken care of, as all the public land goes up in flames.

Cute, but strangely the fires don't seem to care much whether they're burning public or private land. You'd better go properly indoctrinate them in your ideology.
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [TriStart] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
Wow.

I'm sure they'll be good stewardesses of the land though...right?
Quote Reply
Re: Dan thinks the feds should control 90 percent of California land [trail] [ In reply to ]
Quote | Reply
trail wrote:
windschatten wrote:

Looks like in California the issue is taken care of, as all the public land goes up in flames.


Cute, but strangely the fires don't seem to care much whether they're burning public or private land. You'd better go properly indoctrinate them in your ideology.

to me, this one is a pretty good case for whether people can have a civil discussion. if one of the parties had in its platform whether puppies should or shouldn't be subject to cruelty and abuse, could a discussion of this necessarily result in reflexive partisanship?

here we have a pretty simple question: should we have the freedom to roam? is this an inherent right? in the scandinavian countries there is an inherent right to roam. the "freedom to roam", "right to roam", "everyman's right" is a well established point of discussion and, to me, sits right up there with the freedom of expression. why isn't this in our bill of rights? probably because our founding fathers never contemplated a day when this would be an issue. you want to roam? turn left. plenty of roaming that way.

there are many things we can disagree on, as men and women of goodwill, and we can still be friends, neighbors, brothers in sport. there is really only one thing on which we must agree: the freedom to roam. this is a bedrock ethic on which we must agree. if you (not the "you" to whom i'm addressing, but whomever you are) can't agree with me on this, then, yes, you should read elsewhere. slowtwitch isn't your place. we are always going to be pushing, leaning forward on the freedom to roam platform and you'll simply be frustrated if you remain here.

now, then, how to ensure this freedom to roam? scandinavia ensures this, without the need to create public lands, as we do here. the UK is wrestling with this. other countries do this well or less well. but here his what it comes down to:

1. you as a private citizen can own vast tracts of land, but you must allow access across it. by law. those who pass through it must honor your land in various ways. note: hunting is very likely not something you are allowed to do on someone else's private land. so, if you're a hunter, think twice before you choose this option. this is scandinavia.

2. lands held in the public trust. this is model the U.S. has chosen. so, how do you do this?

we ought to be able to have a discussion about this. what i am adamant about are the three Ps: Protection, Preservation, Public access. i am convinced - there is over-flipping-whelming evidence! - that rolling back Bears Ears and Grand Staircase Escalante is all about the one E - Extraction - and not about the 3 Ps.

if anyone thinks this is a states rights case, fine. show me the way the state of utah should do this. if you can, then i'll support it wholeheartedly. i don't see that as of today. but i'm eager to see it.

in just the southwest parks - bryce and zion - visitors fork over more than $500 million annually, supporting directly about 7,500 jobs. this is less than the grand canyon's total. this does not include the southeast's parks: capital reef, arches, canyonlands. utah rocks. or, utah's rocks rock. california is where my heart is; but utah is where my imagination is. many utahns felt likewise during the establishment of their existing parks back in the early 1900s.

tell me YOUR plan (whomever you are) to keep burr trail road, and hole in the rock road, looking exactly the way they do now, with access remaining open, and let's talk about that plan, if it's something other than a natl monument designation. is there enough elasticity in your mind (whomever you are) to have this discussion? because there's enough elasticity in mine.

Dan Empfield
aka Slowman
Quote Reply

Prev Next