1. Attention: We have put together a thread with tips and a tutorial video to help with using the new software. Please take a moment to check out the thread here: Trapshooters.com Tutorial & Help Video.
    Dismiss Notice

More leftist environmentalist tyrrany now Yosemite

Discussion in 'Off Topic Threads' started by wireguy, Jul 12, 2013.

  1. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    http://www.capoliticalreview.com/top-stories/park-service-wants-to-ban-most-people-from-yosemite/?utm_source=CAPoliticalReview.com&utm_campaign=2ecd97844f-RSS_EMAIL_CAMPAIGN&utm_medium=email&utm_term=0_b855a22bd3-2ecd97844f-302205453

    Once again the very people who championed the environmentalist left will be forced to live with their decisions. What delicious irony.

    Park Service Wants to Ban Most People from Yosemite
    July 12, 2013 By Katy Grimes Leave a Comment


    Yosemite National Park is one of America’s greatest natural treasurers, set aside as a national park nearly 150 years ago by Abraham Lincoln specifically for “the public use, resort and recreation…for all time.”

    Yet a proposal by the National Park Service, whose motto is “Experience Your America,” fundamentally changes the entire purpose for which Yosemite was set aside in the first place.

    This week I interviewed Rep. Tom McClintock, R-Calif. He said the National Park Service has been pushing to radically alter the purpose, nature and use of Yosemite National Park in order to remove most visitors.

    McClintock has been waging a battle against the National Park Service and what it has been doing behind closed doors, with the help of radical environmentalists.

    A few months ago, McClintock discovered that the National Parks Service “opposes commercial activities” in the park, and has been working very quietly to get them removed. Bicyling, rafting, camping, snowshoeing and horseback riding were all put on the hit list. It also opposes the souvenir shops, snack stands and hybrid bus tours. These “commercial ventures” apparently offend environmental justice seekers and a new brand of enviro-park rangers who are hostile to park visitors, most of them taxpayers who pay the rangers’ salaries.

    According to McClintock, the park service has already begun the process of removing human activity in Yosemite.
    The Royal Forest



    “Ninety-five percent of the park is already in wilderness,” McClintock explained. “Yet the overwhelming majority of park visitors come to that five percent where amenities are available for public recreation: where they can rent a bike; where they can stop at the snack shop to get ice-cream cones for the kids; where they can pick up souvenirs at the gift shop; where the family can cool off at a lodge swimming pool. And it is precisely these pursuits that the National Park Service would destroy.”

    For more than a century, the mission of helping the American people enjoy the grandeur of their national treasure was honored by the park’s stewards. But no more. The new plan would radically alter the visitor-friendly mission of the park with a new, elitist maxim: “Look, but don’t touch; visit, but don’t enjoy.”

    The increasingly exclusionary and elitist policies of the National Parks Service and National Forest Service are part of the environmental justice movement. “These actions evince an ideologically driven hostility to the public’s enjoyment of the public’s land — and a clear intention to deny the public the responsible and sustainable use of that land,” McClintock said.

    “During the despotic eras of Norman and Plantagenet England, the Crown declared one third of the land area of Southern England to be the Royal Forest, the exclusive preserve of the monarch, his forestry officials and his favored aristocrats,” McClintock explained. “The people of Britain were forbidden access to and enjoyment of these forests under harsh penalties. This exclusionary system became so despised by the people that in 1215, five clauses of the Magna Carta were devoted to redress of grievances that are hauntingly similar to those that are now flooding my office.”

    “The National Park Service proposal would remove long-standing tourist facilities from Yosemite Valley, including bicycle and raft rentals, snack facilities, gift shops, horseback riding, the ice-skating rink at Curry Village, the art center, the grocery store, swimming pools, and even the valley’s iconic and historic stone bridges,” McClintock told me. “These facilities date back generations and provide visitors with a wide range of amenities to enhance their stay at — and their enjoyment of — this world-renowned national park.”

    The NPS seeks to use the Wild and Scenic River designation of the Merced River as an excuse to expel commercial enterprises and dramatically reduce the recreational amenities available to park visitors. Yet according to the author of the designation, former Rep. Tony Coehlo, D-Calif., this was never the intent of the designation.

    The Park Service says the restrictions are necessary to comply with a recent settlement agreement, reached with the most radical and nihilistic fringe of the environmental Left, according to McClintock. But McClintock said the settlement agreement was not mandatory and one in which the Park Service voluntarily entered, then paid $1 million to the environmentalists.
    The enviro lawsuit

    The changes are part of a new set of principles for the park known as the Merced River Plan. Released only in January, the 2,500-page document comes after years of lawsuits over what should be allowed in Yosemite Valley and the Merced River that flows through it, according to McClintock.

    200px-Stoneman_Bridge_Yosemite_YNP1

    The Merced River Draft Plan public webinars and workshops were held in early 2013, but McClintock said they were essentially a farce.

    McClintock said the plan calls for the removal of stone Sugar Pine bridge, built in 1928 and located behind the Ahwahnee Hotel, because its abutments “impede the flow of the Merced River and cause erosion.” It also recommends rebuilding only 40 percent of the 406 campsites lost in the 1997 flood, restoring 203 acres of meadows and improving parking. Visitors still would be allowed to bring bikes, horses or rafts to the park but rentals would not be available any longer.

    In fact, that agreement imposes no requirement on the government to do anything more than adopt a plan consistent with current law, according to McClintock. “And current law is explicit: the 1864 act establishing the park guarantees its use for public recreation and resort; the 1916 Organic Act creating national parks explicitly declares their purpose to be the public enjoyment of the public lands, and the Wild and Scenic River Act contemplated no changes to the amenities at Yosemite — so says its author, [former] Democratic Congressman Tony Coelho. Yet the Park Service insists that the law compels these radical changes.”
    Flood damage

    In January of 1997, the Merced River flooded and caused significant damage to the park. The flood even left more than 2,000 park visitors stranded for several days, because the roads were damaged by the floodwaters.

    Following the flood, Congress appropriated $17 million to restore the parking and campgrounds that were wiped out. “That money was spent, but the parking and campgrounds were never restored,” McClintock said. He has made several formal inquiries to the National Park Service asking where the money went. Only just this week he received a report from Yosemite officials. Once he has thoroughly reviewed the report, I will share his findings.

    Following the flood and Yosemite’s failure to restore the camp sites or parking, McClintock said the number of annual visitors to the park dropped from 4 million to 3 million, a 25 percent drop. Revenues also dropped about 25 percent.
    Protected toads and frogs

    Further complicating matters, and providing additional evidence of the radical environmentalist agenda behind the Yosemite proposals, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s announced it was going to list the Sierra Nevada yellow-legged frog and the mountain yellow-legged frog as endangered species, and the Yosemite toad as a threatened species. And service was going to designate a critical habitat for these species.

    “These listings and the associated critical habitat will impact over two million acres of private, state and federal land,” McClintock said. He noted this was exactly why the Fish and Wildlife Service took the action it did. “Critical habitat designations will likely cause severe restrictions on land access and could limit or forbid activities such as grazing, trout stocking, logging, mining, and recreational use, resulting in a devastating impact on the local economy.”
     
  2. RobertT

    RobertT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2006
    Messages:
    1,353
    I'm sure with enough imagination the National Park Service can rationalize closing all our parks. The marijuana growers attempting to hide their illegal crops are probably lobbying for this. Save the Frogs!

    Robert
     
  3. timberfaller

    timberfaller Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 24, 2007
    Messages:
    7,946
    Location:
    Eastern Washington
    Its been going on since the late 70's here in the PNW, Where have you all been??

    Give them a inch they'll take 10 miles!!

    The ESA of 73 needs to be abolished just like OboCare!

    Any Sierra Club members on this forum??? If you think liberalism is BAD, look up what these clowns have done!! and continue to do!
     
  4. HSLDS

    HSLDS Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Nov 2, 2006
    Messages:
    6,335
    Location:
    S-E PA
    I live just outside Philadelphia - home of the largest city park in the world - Fairmount Park. It encompasses roughly 5,000 acres of land contained within the city - a green space for all to share.

    It has numerous creeks and rivers in it's bounds and is open to all non-motor traffic, including horses and mountain bikes (It is one of the few parks in America that allows mountain bikes 'off trail').

    There is a massive overpopulation of deer - makes sense - urban setting (i.e., no hunting) with lots of plants to eat and no natural predators. Net result is that the native plants get hammered, while the non-native invasive species take over.

    In an attempt to curb this excess and decrease the damage to the park itself culls have been scheduled (deer are baited in, silenced rifles used by professional hunters. Done at night with night vision. Meat is donated to food banks.)

    Needles to say the environmentalists and 'antis' have gone nuts over the hunts.

    Has been rather entertaining to watch the antics in the papers and on the news. Has been going on for nearly 20 years...
     
  5. Catpower

    Catpower Molon Labe TS Supporters

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    10,229
    Location:
    In the Cabana
    econuts are as bad as libs

    $hit what am I saying econuts are always libs
     
  6. Brian in Oregon

    Brian in Oregon Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    25,238
    Location:
    Deplorable Bitter Clinger in Liberal La La Land
    timberfaller is right. We've had numerous road closures in the national forests and an attempt was made to close a main road in Hell's Canyon. The latter would have cut off access to the canyon by the handicapped. Some activities, like off roading, have been forced into smaller and smaller areas. This still does not satisfy the environmental extremists. They want is all stopped. Just as they have pretty much shut down the logging industry. In my area, we used to see log trucks daily. Now you see one once in a blue moon.
     
  7. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    There is a large ranch south of San Diego's east county called the Dailey Ranch. It was purchased by the state to become a wildlife refuge. I begged them not to make it a refuge because that cut off all access to it by bird dog people except for special DFG hunts where they wanted dog handlers. So of course they made it a refuge.

    Our very first hunt one year the dog handlers show up and the weeds all across the ranch are minimum 4' tall, as much as 8' in some places. The DFG sends us out to handle our bird dogs for the hunters who had won these (planted) pheasant hunts in a lottery or whatever. The dog handlers are god on these hunts. The name of the game is safety and since we have all been in that arena for many years we are charged with making sure no one gets hurt and we have total authority.

    Yea, in minimum 4' high weeds where I can't even see my dogs and mostly not the hunters, most who are amateurs, and I'm expected to run a safe hunt. At the end of the day I told the DFG I would not be back and pretty much all the other dog handlers followed suit. This was a major embarrassment to the DFG who were by then preservationists not conservationists. They came to me and said what can we do so I explained to them how they could cut those fields in a checkerboard pattern leaving just enough of the high cover that we could see through it. That was a huge week long job but they got it done and it worked pretty well.

    It was a revelation though of the difference between a mindset of creating quality habitat and of simply putting a fence around the place and letting it go back to jungle. That's what the eco freaks want. Shut mankind out and let everything become jungle, with this caveat. NEVER let anything burn. So they demand au naturale on one hand but never allow nature's fire to do it's cleansing and rejuvenating work, so when it does finally get on fire big time there is a fantastic amount of fuel and the fire burns faster and hotter and more destructive of the habitat than nature would have done. Eco freaks are loud stupid obnoxious monsters, pure and simple.
     
  8. flashmax

    flashmax Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 22, 2013
    Messages:
    6,188
    Location:
    Colorado
    Hunters and fishermen have done more to ensure that the enviro whacko's can go out and see a firgum bird or butterfly that any left-liberal-pita ever did. Matter of fact the birdwatchers and nature freaks would cry loud and long if their equipment were subjected to the same taxes that 'sportsmen' voluntarily signed up for and pay to this day. The californicating weasels don't seem to know where the money came from to make that ranch a 'preserve'. The above link is from Arid-zone-A game and fish but it covers part of what happened 75 plus years ago. I would think that the various State fees go to do the same things on a State level. If it weren't for shooters, hunters, and fishermen there wouldn't be any "Spotted Green Wing Specked Pups" to look at.

    Here is a look at california;

    http://www.tws-west.org/transactions/Van%20Vleck.pdf

    Don T. Littleton CO
     
  9. wireguy

    wireguy TS Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 1998
    Messages:
    3,715
    Hunters and fishers are the original nature lovers. If it weren't for us there wouldn't be any habitat or creatures left for the greenies to preserve. I tried to explain that point to this green lady once and all I got was shrill screaming about what a monster I am.