PhreeZone 20 #26 September 8, 2004 Individuals, or non profit organizations? Huge difference between the two you know. Individuals can stop access at any point for any reason, getting a nonprofit to stop access is a whole lot harder. All it would take is for all the manufactors to donate a small % of their sales to a non-profit fund and in no time you could join something like the Conservation Alliance www.conservationalliance.com and have hundreds of thoasands of dollars availble to lobby or buy land with. Granted you'd have to have shared access with hikers, climbers, mountian bikers and fisherman... but I don't see that as an issue. Castleton Towers in Utah is open for climbing forever now thanks to efforts from groups like this. Attached is a picture that shows effects of clear cutting. On the left is land that was publicaly owned, on the right was land that the logging companies "leased" from the park system. As you can see there is nothing left on the leased land. They go as close to the boarder as possible and some times over it (slight fines are possible for cutting the wrong tree). Plans for the "leased" land include just letting nature reclaim it, planting it with sapplings, or looking into mineral rights and strip mining it. Too bad there are huge amounts of soil errosion and vegatation loss after clear cutting everything, this presents issues in making timber a renewable resource. If trees can't grow because the soil is all washed away you end up with bare spots that you are lucky if grasses can grow.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #27 September 8, 2004 QuoteIndividuals, or non profit organizations? Huge difference between the two you know. Non profits, if well organized are just groups of individuals with similar interests. If poorly organized, they can be shams to sucker in people who don't know what's going on. On balance, I'd rather have the land be owned by an individual than an organization. I trust people a lot more easily than I trust organizations with fluid membership, officers, and by-laws. I guess what I'm saying is that if I owned the cliff, I'd know that it would be jumpable. Otherwise, I have no guarantees.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #28 September 8, 2004 If you owned the cliff and then died what happens to the cliff? At least with a nonprofit its layed out in its bylaws exactly what the purpose of the land is to be and to change that is usually a large undertaking. You could lose interst in jumping down the road and then be left with a cliff you have no interst in anymore, with an organization its fluid and tends to stay the course in reguards to how it was founded even if its different then how the new thoughts of its members are. Sierra Club is like that, they tend to promote minimal usage of land because thats how they were founded even though a lot of their members would rather see minimal development like trails, timber and wildlife management.Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #29 September 8, 2004 QuoteIf you owned the cliff and then died what happens to the cliff? It is passed to my heirs, same as the rest of my stuff. Perhaps my heirs want to set up a trust to manage it, or perhaps they want to sell it, or perhaps they want to keep it privately held. It's up to them.-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
TomAiello 26 #30 September 8, 2004 QuoteSierra Club is like that, they tend to promote minimal usage of land because thats how they were founded even though a lot of their members would rather see minimal development like trails, timber and wildlife management. Yep. The Sierra Club is one of my least favorite organizations. They run around telling people "we want to save nature, don't you love nature?" But what they're not saying is that they want to kick all those nature loving people out of the wilderness and send them back into the city. My roommates and I, back when I was a climber, once chased a Sierra Club solicitor out of our front yard. He admitted that the Sierra club would rather that all fixed climbing anchors be removed. If the Sierra club took over my cliff after I died, I swear I'd rise up from the dead and strangle whoever let that happen. What, exactly, is the purpose of those public lands if no one is going to be able to enjoy them in any way? BTW, do you know the Sierra Club's position on BASE jumping in the wilderness?-- Tom Aiello Tom@SnakeRiverBASE.com SnakeRiverBASE.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
PhreeZone 20 #31 September 8, 2004 I'm not a great fan of the Sierria club, but I imagine they frown on BASE. Only the Sierria club would sue the NPS service for trying to reduce traffic into Yosemite because they are widing a highway to make it easier for buses to go in instead of cars Yesterday is history And tomorrow is a mystery Parachutemanuals.com Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Sinkster 0 #32 September 8, 2004 ur probably mostly right, but i've heard stories of this bird being a target for logging 'hit men': http://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/nature/birding/redcockadedwoodpecker/red_cockaded_woodpecker.htm Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #33 September 8, 2004 QuoteSpecifically, I think that an environmentalist is going to make it less likely that I'll ever be able to legally jump in a National Park in the US. If they want to ban snowmobiles, forget BASE. I have to differ with you on that one. I suppose I fall into the category of "environmentalist" (got my AAS in environmental restoration and my BS in environmental quality) and I certainly wouldn't oppose BASE jumping in national parks. BASE jumping does not have much of a negative effect on the environment, provided the jumpers do not establish new routes to the top (e.g. new anchors, new trails, etc). I have no problem with wilderness/national park recreation that doesn't detract from the ability of animals and other humans to enjoy the environment. Rockclimbing, hiking, BASE jumping, mountain biking, hang gliding, etc...these things can be accomplished without noxious emissions or tremendous amounts of noise. Snowmobiles and other off-road vehicles cannot make the same claim. How well can YOU appreciate the tranquility of nature with a couple dozen unmuffled snowmobile engines screaming in the background? Which type of activity is more likely to scare off the indigenous creatures? Which type will leave more "scars" on the terrain (granted mountain biking will as well)? Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
livendive 8 #34 September 8, 2004 QuoteBush's decision to open 60 million arces of roadless wilderness to groups for roadbuilding, logging, mining, and drilling is a huge black eye environmentally for me. ... Does environmental policy really matter or is it only for us backpacking treehuggers? I wouldn't consider myself much of a treehugger, but I do care quite a bit about how we interact with our environment. Bush's lack of consideration for the environment is by itself enough reason for me to never vote for him. Blues, Dave"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!" (drink Mountain Dew) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
