Bush erases Clinton's ban on development in forests

[Tom]

Matt, Thanks! That's a good find, I bookmarked it. Its water polution. Ben Franklin complained eh. Neat. Hey, I know an old reference for the first anti hunting recorded complaint, its BC, Cicero complained about slaughtering animals then, some people thought it was vulgar he said. I could find it, it was at a Venaciones event, where the word venison comes from.

This is there too, "1874 Texas Wildlife, Legislation Texas enacts its first trespass statute, protecting enclosed lands from trespass by "shooting, hunting, fishing or fowling" " Pretty early history on trespass laws for hunting.

The first time forests are mentioned is 1868 and its the invention of the circular saw to cut trees up faster. It looks like US citizens thought the trees would last forever for quite a while here. How old is forest conservation here in the US? Buzz has some old book with the Naval Preserve of 1799, I guess, that would be neat to learn more about?

 

[BuzzH]

Tom, the FIRST forest legislation was enacted 6 years after the landing on Plymouth Rock...so what is that...1632ish.

The Naval Reserves act of 1799 was designated to protect Eastern White Pine as they were THE exclusive tree used for ship masts...they grow straight and are relatively light-weight.

Check out the broad arrow policy with an internet search...you'll see I was not exaggerating at all.

Tom, heres the guts of what the broad arrow policy and the first attempts by colonial America at Forest Management:

As in other former colonies, many of the fundamental concepts that shaped the political organization and management objectives for forests in the United States derive from forest tenure and management in feudal Europe. The major colonial policy directed towards forests was the Broad Arrow Policy, established in 1691 by the charter for the Province of Massachusetts Bay (Dana, 1956). Eventually extended to several other colonies, the Broad Arrow Policy embodied and expressed basic tenets of forest tenure and management in feudal Europe: that the state's rights to and interests in forests hold primacy over those of local people, and that the state's objectives for forest resources need not be determined by - and may run counter to - the interests of local people. The policy was immediately unpopular and proved unenforceable (Dana, 1956).

 

[ELKCHSR]

be a man and admit you're wrong.

ROFLMAO!!! Now that is a riot coming from you who has never admitted it since I have been on here and proven such on many occasions...Snicker, snicker… you are a funny guy some times… I really can’t believe you said that…

were advocating resource management around the time of the civil war.

Advocating some thing and getting national recognition is two different things and that is what is going on here, we are talking to different things and you want to make it one...

Your lack of knowledge on resource management is pretty darn obvious,

Yep, and I have offered on many occasions of the work I have done in the past and show you my lack of it, but you seem to back out and never look, I guess it is better to stuff your head in the sand and not see the truth, rather than have your lying eyes tell you differently...

The U.S. has been practicing resource management for at least a couple hundred years according to all reliable sources.

Yep, and again this may be so, but it was all done on small scales in specific areas with out much of the rest of the U.S. understanding or even caring... Look at all of the "resource management" that took place in that area across the U.S. as a whole, and look at how some of the rules started to take effect "nationally" after the first park was designated, we are talking two different things here and you living and hiding in a box not wanting to see that isn't helping your case, no matter how much other "Stuff" you come up with....

to realize that the U.S. has been practicing resource management for 200+ years...and clearly WAY before the time of T. Roosevelt.

LMAO and again I will state, on a national public awareness, it didn't start until much later than that book was published distributed, sitting on shelves collecting dust and read in libraries by some but not most...

Good read Matt thanks, it still proves my point even better, there were small groups around trying to get a foot hold in and get things done, but it was still the first park that started getting the overall awareness...

The policy was immediately unpopular and proved unenforceable (Dana, 1956).

LOL... Now that is very interesting, I wonder why it was that the first park had to be invented, maybe because no one was paying attention???

Or, maybe it was because every one just under 400 years ago understood and utilized the rules and regulations of what the U.S. parks and wilderness departments practice today???

Or was it the first park was the actual first ideals that people as a whole or mostly any way felt that there were things that actually needed protection and saving???

If it was true that forest and wild life laws or at that time "ideals" were really understood or even cared about in the 1600's, 1700's, even into the mid 1800's, then why was it that most all of the big game and large animals of the entire u.s. were almost wiped out of existence up until that time and the real heavy logging didn't even start to slow down to a crawl until the 1970-1980's???

Of course you can go to some one trying to save some thing clear back to the Stone Age, or the dawn of time, but when was it that the population as a whole started to buy into it???

 

[mtmiller]

I wonder why it was that the first park had to be invented

Who ended up with the patent on that one?

 

[JoseCuervo]

Who ended up with the patent on that one?

Miller,
I wasn't sure which one of the Cheese's statements to pull out and make fun of.... Thanks for helping that.... I would love to see Thomas Edison trying to invent a "park"....

That last post by Cheese may have been his best post on not saying anything and making himself look clueless. It is sad that Buzz schools him like this, and he isn't man enough to say thanks for the information.

 

[SageGhost]

here ya go. sweetie !!!

hey fuzzy buzzy .. this is what he is going to be opening up... heres some pics from yesterdays hunt !!!

 

[Tom]

The Broad Arrow Policy was for the masts of ships, I read. The King's trees. It was England's policy, right? Was the Naval Reserve like that too? Stuff for the King.

It seems to me, American's starting preserving, when the frontier ran out. They realized the expansion was not endless and that habitat, including water, could be ruined if not protected.

What's the Plymouth Rock document? The King's charter for it, preserve it for the king, what else?

 

[SageGhost]

reply..

thats funny.. a wyoming Hippie telling me i dont have a clue about idaho..
i think you should join this club !!!START YOUR OWN CLUB IN WYOMING !!!!

 

[SageGhost]

here ya go buzzy..

i am going to post some numbers that you may not understand !!!
5,676,000 acres allow road construction
2,340,000 acres do not allow road construction
1,402,000 acres recemmended wilderness area
3,931,000 acres designated outside of wilderness areas
6,714,000 all other,general

so buzzy.. better luck next time... did you join the group and meet people with things in common with you ??? maybe you need to come hang out with me and ill teach you about the forests of Idaho !!!


We'll have to go offroading or something !!!

 

[BuzzH]

Hey sagehen,

You're as clueless as the cheese.

"He" isnt going to open up any of the areas under clintons executive order.

If you had even a remote clue about how the NF's were managed you'd know that. But apparently NFMA, NEPA, and MA's are something you've never heard of.

HAHA.

I just like all the road closures and access that the fat-assed ATVers are losing...in particular in Idaho. Apparently you and the BRC arent real bright. Thankfully, there are some smart people in Idaho...unfortunately you arent one of them. Better join up with the winning team as dumbshits like you are going to be lucky if you can unload an atv in the woods.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL Buzz....

You are still trying to make one issue out of two...

You can follow the lines of "small" areas setting up conservation projects in one way or another for possibly thousands of years, in countries all over the world, and post all sorts of evidence to this...

So what, it still hasn't any thing to do with this topic...

When was it that the U.S. as a "whole" got behind the movement and started changing things????

When was it they started bringing in hunting seasons and regulating what one could shoot???

When was it they really started a concerted effort to protect many things around the U.S. as a whole??

When was it "the people" as a whole started to get involved?

You answer the dates to these and you will also see a pattern here that is more consistent with what I have mentioned and all of the little things you have mentioned have led up to get this thing going "Nationally"....

Craig, that was funny...

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

Tom and I were discussing the history of resource management...not regulated sport hunting.

Please take a comprehension course, find a clue, and pull your head out of your ass.

You dont get it cheese, and by the way, Miller took a pretty good shot at you with his post (I know your comprehension is not that great and you're pretty s-l-o-w).

 

[ELKCHSR]

I saw the shot by Miller and I see it as a shot in humor...

and you are still trying to mix the two together as one and they are not...

I don't see how the small brow beating tantrum did you any good.. But I guess that is you... get pounded and this is all you can come up with...

 

[BuzzH]

Cheese,

Please try to follow along with the thread...

Tom and I were discussing resource management...in particular timber management and the fact that both have been happening for a couple hundred years.

We werent discussing game management or the history of national parks.

The only person on this thread that is confused is you.

You're a clueless dumbass...and it really shows.

 

[Muledeer4me]

Sageghost, nice pictures.





"I just like all the road closures and access that the fat-assed ATVers are losing...in particular in Idaho. Apparently you and the BRC arent real bright. Thankfully, there are some smart people in Idaho...unfortunately you arent one of them. Better join up with the winning team as dumbshits like you are going to be lucky if you can unload an atv in the woods."


Buzz, Reading your posts you don't sound like someone that is on a winning team,if you piss & moan this loud when you think your on a winning team ,will we get out of the drought when you think your on the losing team???? LOL


Its not about winning or losing
It's about useing good managment and taking care of what we have while at the same time knowing the differance between what the treehugger/gronala cruncher tell you to believe and what is real.

 

[BuzzH]

MD4ME,

Have you read the mountain of articles about how the fat-assed ATVers are being locked out of more and more areas?

I'd say the winning team is winning big...more and more restrictions and more and more areas closed off to ATV's.

Gotta like that.

 

[ELKCHSR]

LOL Debbie....

You hit it right on and Buzz thinks its a pissing match and this is the place he will win at...

Poor feller just doesn't have any idea of whose rope to piss up it seems...

 

[BuzzH]

Hey Cheese,

Are you also in denial about all the atv restrictions and areas being closed off?

 

[Tom]

Hey Buzz, Who's going to enforce the ATV restrictions, isn't that a problem? I've been places out west where they are not supposed to be and they are there. Are there any studies on that you've heard of, how often is it a problem?

 

[Bandit]

even though they had rules in place, they still need people out there to enforce them. I agree with Tom, it's a real problem especially if they are destroying the land just for their leisure. Now I may be wrong but I'm going with what I see posted here.