Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Most Alaskans are not happy with the National Forest Service. When they have "controlled" burns, they tend not to be controlled. Three of the last five major fires on the Kenai Peninsula were started by the National Forest Service. Or they will prohibit Alaskans from harvesting beetle-killed spruce, which always results in bigger fires and more damage.
It's politics. It seems either the timber industry or the radical environmentalists get their way. Reason, balance, and actual scientific management? Nope, can't have that. I think the constant lawsuits makes them act a bit rashly whenever they actually can do something, even if it's not the right time to do it. Some environmental group sued and won an order requiring a 1930's, CCC-built fire lookout to be removed from a national forest in the lower 48, because a "wilderness" group wants it gone. When questioned on it and how the fire lookout drew hikers, I recall hearing they don't want too many people going up there. The USFS has done a poor job in AK, but I much prefer national forests to national parks. The NPS would prefer no one actually go on the lands they manage, besides the no-hunting, etc., and then there was that incident in the Yukon River...
Oy. See, I agree with everything said here. I can't dispute much of anything except that some dead timber should be removed. I do agree with that.
What is hard for me is yes, people are total pigs and what they do, without a care in the world, boils my blood. It's times when I see, such as when I lived and worked in the Everglades, certain places used as DUMP SITES, not officially, just because of total pigs, that I think, "Yes! Make these restrictions!"
But, I also agree that the NP purpose is to preserve so that we can all enjoy and learn about nature as well for our future generations so don't make these restrictions.
As someone said, there needs to be a balance...what is it? I simply cannot figure it out because I'm too guided by emotions at any given time when it comes to our beautiful National Parks.
When I was a kid, Woodsy the Owl and Smokey the Bear were huge hits. Where are they now? I don't believe in "indoctrinating" kids but I don't think telling kids that littering is bad or to be careful so you don't start a forest fire is bad...maybe there needs to be more education? Maybe we should show what Yellowstone used to look like compared to what it looks like now? Or the Everglades? Or any random National Park? Is that the answer?
I know we can't make someone care but is it possible to try to teach them respect and what their actions do? I don't know, I'd love to have an answer...balance is definitely the key...how do we get there?
I think if we're talking a beach or something, the NPS has the ability to simply have a ranger present to make sure people aren't dumping trash or such. But this "walk where the water washes your tracks away" nonsense is illustrative of the preservationist mindset taken to an extreme: they don't want anyone there.
I think if we're talking a beach or something, the NPS has the ability to simply have a ranger present to make sure people aren't dumping trash or such. But this "walk where the water washes your tracks away" nonsense is illustrative of the preservationist mindset taken to an extreme: they don't want anyone there.
It's quite impossible to have rangers to cover every square mile of the Everglades, as an example. I don't think that's a viable answer...sure, it would create more jobs but I don't know that they have the money for it.
As for the beach scenario of walking where the water washes away any trace of you, I agree, that's taken to an extreme and I believe you are right, they don't want people there.
It's quite impossible to have rangers to cover every square mile of the Everglades, as an example. I don't think that's a viable answer...sure, it would create more jobs but I don't know that they have the money for it.
As for the beach scenario of walking where the water washes away any trace of you, I agree, that's taken to an extreme and I believe you are right, they don't want people there.
Most of the time truly environmentally sensitive areas of beach will be cordoned off. At least this is what I have seen in areas with Sea Turtle nests.
We've seen posters here on CD who actually wish for the extinction of the human race they loath us so much as they worship the earth. I think this is not too far from the policies of Cass Sunstein.
The biggest threat to the Florida Everglades is not human, it is reptilian, as in the python.
Most of the time truly environmentally sensitive areas of beach will be cordoned off. At least this is what I have seen in areas with Sea Turtle nests.
We've seen posters here on CD who actually wish for the extinction of the human race they loath us so much as they worship the earth. I think this is not too far from the policies of Cass Sunstein.
The biggest threat to the Florida Everglades is not human, it is reptilian, as in the python.
I completely understand and agree when it comes to those turtles. It's very delicate and we don't need people ruining it.
I'm still reading up about Cass since your earlier post but yah, although in one aspect I agree with him on animal "rights", (although I'm more for welfare, not rights), I'm discovering he has more up his sleeve that is pretty disturbing.
Actually, it is human. The reason those pythons are there is because of humans. The reason the iguanas are there, eating the native foliage, is because of humans. These people get these animals as pets, for whatever lame excuse they can come up with, decide that they no longer want that animal as a pet and dump them off in the Everglades cause, hey, it's the wild! And it's a "good" thing to put snakes back in to the wild! Right?!? It doesn't take but a few to start an explosion of animals that destroy the natural fauna, the natural habitat and then, shortly thereafter, we have a problem. The snakes and iguanas didn't walk there themselves. They were put there by humans.
The reason for that toad...man, the name escapes me now...is because of humans. ONE crate broke open at the airport back in either the 60s or 50s and now, those toads have done a bang up job of relieving South Florida of all kinds of native species.
The reason the Everglades catches fire, (more often than not), is because of humans. The reason the water doesn't flow as it should, (droughts happen naturally but they won't allow them to happen, hence the BRIDGE), is because of humans.
What we have done to the Everglades is nothing short of criminal.
HOWEVER, my job was airboat captain. I took people out there, I gave them a tour. I tried to educate them about the Everglades, the plant life, the animals, I hoped that they would learn a new respect. Often times people were scared to go on the tour thinking they would be eaten alive by gators. By the end of the tour, many of them were over their fears once they learned about the gators...and I studied everything about the Everglades that I could get my hands on because that is exactly what I set out to do...teach. Not fear, respect. Not as some "dumb" animal, respect. Respect them, you respect where they live, maybe you won't act in such a way that destroys their home. I tried. I just wonder what the NP service can do.
I completely understand and agree when it comes to those turtles. It's very delicate and we don't need people ruining it.
I'm still reading up about Cass since your earlier post but yah, although in one aspect I agree with him on animal "rights", (although I'm more for welfare, not rights), I'm discovering he has more up his sleeve that is pretty disturbing.
Actually, it is human. The reason those pythons are there is because of humans. The reason the iguanas are there, eating the native foliage, is because of humans. These people get these animals as pets, for whatever lame excuse they can come up with, decide that they no longer want that animal as a pet and dump them off in the Everglades cause, hey, it's the wild! And it's a "good" thing to put snakes back in to the wild! Right?!? It doesn't take but a few to start an explosion of animals that destroy the natural fauna, the natural habitat and then, shortly thereafter, we have a problem. The snakes and iguanas didn't walk there themselves. They were put there by humans.
The reason for that toad...man, the name escapes me now...is because of humans. ONE crate broke open at the airport back in either the 60s or 50s and now, those toads have done a bang up job of relieving South Florida of all kinds of native species.
The reason the Everglades catches fire, (more often than not), is because of humans. The reason the water doesn't flow as it should, (droughts happen naturally but they won't allow them to happen, hence the BRIDGE), is because of humans.
Doesn't seem to be a problem for the snakes. Let em be isn't that the mantra of the earth lovers? They would have found their own way there soon enough. Evil man will leave the planet when another asteroid or super volcano or whatever pops off so all the earth folks will be happy finally. The big rock has seen a lot worse than man has to offer by a long shot. I doubt dropping some snakes in the everglades has mother earth all that upset. lol
Alright, I'm a little torn about this. On the one hand, I don't agree with it because we should be able to go out and enjoy the land and nature that we, as taxpayers, are paying for but on the other hand, I've lived in Miami and I have seen just how much some people do not care nor respect nature one iota.
Nevermind that it's a conservative site, just read it.
Most of the beaches in Miami don't allow you to bring your dog anyway so I'm not sure why the uproar over that but I do think that "walk in the water to wash away your footprints" business is over the top.
Having worked in the Everglades, I have seen first hand just how badly your every day Joe will destroy the environment but I have also seen just how badly the environmentalists will also screw it up with their demands for an unnecessary bridge that went ahead and depleted a nesting area for herons and egrets and killed a lot of animals during initial phases of construction so, again, I'm torn.
I know I'm asking a lot but is it possible, without sarcasm, to give me your side and why you are for or against this?
The more liberal side of me says, "Yes! Stop destroying everything!" while the more conservative side of me says, "What kind of garbage is this! Stop dictating everything! And hey! Thanks for the job loss!"
Your thoughts?
This is nothing new for off road enthusiasts. Off roaders have been branded as evil people with no regard for the environment, despite the fact that we do more to clean/maintain trails than any other group.
National Park Service does a great job IMHO. My house borders national forest and I hike a lot. I see first hand what the Park Service does and I see first hand how destructive people can be whether it is mountain bikers 'creating' a new trail or people just dumping their garbage as they go. The Park Service has to maintain a balance between protecting our parks and forests and providing access for recreational purposes.
You said that your house backs up to a National Forest. Then you talked about National Parks and the Park Service. Which is it? They are COMPLETELY different. As one who seems to be implying that they're conscious about these things - and as someone whose house borders a National Forest - I would expect you to know the difference.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
