On Sep 10, 7:48 am, "Wolfgang" wrote:
"George Cleveland" wrote in message

...



On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 01:09:02 -0000, Halfordian Golfer
wrote:

On Sep 9, 6:58 pm, salmobytes wrote:
On Sep 9, 6:24 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:

excerpted
from:http://www.9news.com/news/local/arti...?storyid=77024
DENVER (AP) - Hundreds of Colorado streams are being analyzed for
possible protection under the federal Wild and Scenic Rivers Act.
......
Does a 'wild and scenic' designation mean a direction away from
habitation of these 100's of rivers? What does it mean, in practice?

Calm down Tim. The Yellowstone has been wild and scenic for years,
I believe. It's a bureaucrat concept that brings, among other things,
the ability to influence and control the reckless chaos of the free
market.

Certainly not upset Sandy, just the opposite in fact. I'm just curious
what it means. Does it mean we shift from one 'reckless chaos of the
free market', agriculture, perhaps to another, sports fishing and
tourism? Or what? I'm serious about the question, can we really leave
a place wild, and, if we profess to love it as much as we do,
shouldn't we? I think of the waters off the bikini atoll, forced un-
inhabitation through nuclear destruction for half a century, now
reopened as one of the top 5 dive spots in the world. I think the
nature conservancy is more pure in this regard except that the people
that get to go to these places are usually influential in one form or
another, not always the case, but often enough, anyway. Not that it's
a bad thing. This might be a good tradeoff. Who was it that spoke of
the "Canadian Consciousness" that of a people knowing a true
wilderness was at their back door. Gierach, I think...sounds like
him.

Your pal,

Tim

Here is what the act says. These don't have to be wilderness rivers.

"It is hereby declared to be the policy of the United States that
certain selected rivers of the Nation which, with their immediate
environments, possess outstandingly remarkable scenic, recreational,
geologic, fish and wildlife, historic, cultural or other similar
values, shall be preserved in free-flowing condition, and that they
and their immediate environments shall be protected for the benefit
and enjoyment of present and future generations. The Congress declares
that the established national policy of dams and other construction at
appropriate sections of the rivers of the United States needs to be
complemented by a policy that would preserve other selected rivers or
sections thereof in their free-flowing condition to protect the water
quality of such rivers and to fulfill other vital national
conservation purposes. (Wild & Scenic Rivers Act, October 2, 1968)"

Well, sure, but can a conscientious thinking person really take seriously a
governmental proclamation that flagrantly contravenes dictionary.com?

Wolfgang
who has seen where flirting with reason can lead.......and it ain't pretty.


It's hard to take an oxymoron like "wild and scenic" seriously. Unless
of course you're referring to 'scenic' through the eyes of the
wildlife. Again I wonder about the practical affect. This has a 'feel-
good' ring to it but it seems to be a bit void or misleading. Let's
make river "a" wild and scenic so we can suck the life out of river
"b"? I can appreciate the Yellowstone being wild and scenic, but, it's
such an arduous hike in the Grand Canyon to reach it, it is pretty
safe, and, being nestled in the most protected NP in the world, seems
a little redundant?

TBone
A cash flow runs through it