Mwheaps32
Member
- Joined
- Sep 7, 2016
- Messages
- 168
They all will collect a nice fat pension though. If they could do some MAJOR pension reform there would be plenty of funds available.
P
poopdeck
Well-known member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2013
- Messages
- 2,420
This thread is a study in sociology. I find it enlightening that even though the bill is linked and it clearly shows public lands are not being paved over for profit yet the title is taken as fact. Incredible.
JimKennedy
Active member
- Joined
- Feb 27, 2016
- Messages
- 262
This commentary isn't worth getting our tails wrapped around an axle, brother anglers. It is neither article nor newspaper editorial, but rather a letter to the editor (as noted by Salmonid) from no-doubt well-meaning but seemingly half informed fellow with a political axe to grind.
Such letters to the editor are certainly in the grand tradition of American political discourse, and the discussion on this thread it has spawned is exactly why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are important parts of our system. Agree with Mr. Hildebrand of Eighty Four, Pa., or not, he certainly has hit on a subject worth all of our attention: management of public lands.
Public lands are a concept as old as western civilization, as evidenced by the English word "commons" as it applies to public territory within a town. From the time of Teddy Roosevelt and his contemporaries, there has been a divide on American lands policy. The John Muir school of thought says preserved public wild lands should be preserved in their pristine state and access limited to those with the financial and other types of wherewithal to hike in on their own. Pennsylvania son and Roosevelt's Chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot though public lands should be made accessible for the public to use, and when appropriate, harvest from for recreation or profit. These are vast oversimplifications, however the ghosts of the two men remain, with the Muir theory being the idealized view of the what many of us grew up believing about public lands, while Pinchot and his successors in the realm of public policy making have made the park services across our country the envy of the world, and also have resulted in the leasing to massive corporations of grazing, timber harvesting and mineral extraction rights on public lands. Note that Muir's idea, taken to the extreme, likely would not allow for fishing and hunting on public lands, only observation and meditation, while the extreme on the Pinchot side says public lands should be open to exploitation by the first members of the public to arrive and gather up the valuables (or the highest bidder, as raftman and poopdeck observe).
Let us not be naive when talking about management of public lands. State game lands paid for by hunting license fees certainly should not be open for logging, but to understand why requires a detailed understanding that there are different kinds of public lands, and they are managed through a variety of public (government) entities, ranging from local parks and recreation councils to various land management bureaus within the U.S. Department of Interior. These details seem to be somewhat lost on the irascible Mr. Hildebrand, as is the reality that neither of the two political parties in this country has a particularly nuanced take on public lands. More typically, when disputes arise on the edges, each takes the side it believes will result in securing votes. (Both parties, in my estimation, are blessed with a surplus of good intentions which they attempt to put into place with ham handed policies designed to make the other side look stupid.)
Too often we pick a party thinking its leadership is right-thinking, and presume no matter what they do, the other would do worse. Better to understand the issues we care about in great detail, and write letters and emails to the pols who represent us, or would like to, and support those who care about the things we care about, while making damn sure to vote against those who do not.
By way of political disclaimer, I am a passionate moderate. I believe few good ideas have come from the actions of both major American political parties, but when we have failed to hold their feet to the fire, both have produced some public policies that are anywhere from fair to downright oatmeal headed.
Pay attention, do the kind of research that many on this thread have done in looking up legislation and other articles, and on those drives to go fishing, talk about these things with our fellow lovers of the outdoors. If you have faith in a political party to do what is best in the interest of protecting our fishing, hunting and public lands and blindly offer your support, I can guarantee you will be deeply disappointed.
Sorry for the length of this diatribe.
Such letters to the editor are certainly in the grand tradition of American political discourse, and the discussion on this thread it has spawned is exactly why freedom of speech and freedom of the press are important parts of our system. Agree with Mr. Hildebrand of Eighty Four, Pa., or not, he certainly has hit on a subject worth all of our attention: management of public lands.
Public lands are a concept as old as western civilization, as evidenced by the English word "commons" as it applies to public territory within a town. From the time of Teddy Roosevelt and his contemporaries, there has been a divide on American lands policy. The John Muir school of thought says preserved public wild lands should be preserved in their pristine state and access limited to those with the financial and other types of wherewithal to hike in on their own. Pennsylvania son and Roosevelt's Chief of the Forest Service Gifford Pinchot though public lands should be made accessible for the public to use, and when appropriate, harvest from for recreation or profit. These are vast oversimplifications, however the ghosts of the two men remain, with the Muir theory being the idealized view of the what many of us grew up believing about public lands, while Pinchot and his successors in the realm of public policy making have made the park services across our country the envy of the world, and also have resulted in the leasing to massive corporations of grazing, timber harvesting and mineral extraction rights on public lands. Note that Muir's idea, taken to the extreme, likely would not allow for fishing and hunting on public lands, only observation and meditation, while the extreme on the Pinchot side says public lands should be open to exploitation by the first members of the public to arrive and gather up the valuables (or the highest bidder, as raftman and poopdeck observe).
Let us not be naive when talking about management of public lands. State game lands paid for by hunting license fees certainly should not be open for logging, but to understand why requires a detailed understanding that there are different kinds of public lands, and they are managed through a variety of public (government) entities, ranging from local parks and recreation councils to various land management bureaus within the U.S. Department of Interior. These details seem to be somewhat lost on the irascible Mr. Hildebrand, as is the reality that neither of the two political parties in this country has a particularly nuanced take on public lands. More typically, when disputes arise on the edges, each takes the side it believes will result in securing votes. (Both parties, in my estimation, are blessed with a surplus of good intentions which they attempt to put into place with ham handed policies designed to make the other side look stupid.)
Too often we pick a party thinking its leadership is right-thinking, and presume no matter what they do, the other would do worse. Better to understand the issues we care about in great detail, and write letters and emails to the pols who represent us, or would like to, and support those who care about the things we care about, while making damn sure to vote against those who do not.
By way of political disclaimer, I am a passionate moderate. I believe few good ideas have come from the actions of both major American political parties, but when we have failed to hold their feet to the fire, both have produced some public policies that are anywhere from fair to downright oatmeal headed.
Pay attention, do the kind of research that many on this thread have done in looking up legislation and other articles, and on those drives to go fishing, talk about these things with our fellow lovers of the outdoors. If you have faith in a political party to do what is best in the interest of protecting our fishing, hunting and public lands and blindly offer your support, I can guarantee you will be deeply disappointed.
Sorry for the length of this diatribe.
T
troutbert
Well-known member
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2006
- Messages
- 10,808
I noticed the same thing.
The assertions of the letter to the editor in the OP have been thoroughly debunked in the thread.
His statements have been proven to be false.
Yet people still post AS IF his assertions were true.
And the OP is still up on the board.
JackM
Moderator
Staff member
- Joined
- Sep 9, 2006
- Messages
- 17,324
Very enlightened take on the topic. I only disagree with your disdain for party politics. It is the way we do government here in the USA. Work to change your party, even just little bits at a time and on specific issues. Unfortunately, I have come to believe that with each piece of legislation requiring a Yea or Nay, it is irresponsible to answer "maybe."
Chaz
Active member
- Joined
- Sep 13, 2006
- Messages
- 8,454
What the article did explain is that this guy helped to hold the 2 Commissions hostage over license increases, something both commissions need desperately. That alone should be cause to get him and his cronies out of the state legislature, and keep them and him out of office.
