![]() |
If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
![]() 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. The reviews by the Bureau of Land Management are worrying some water utilities and others who are seeking to develop water in many of the same streams to meet demand from a growing population. So far only a segment of the Poudre River north of Fort Collins is formally protected under the act, but the Yampa, Blue, Eagle and Colorado rivers are under review for possible protection. [snip] From: www.dictionary.com 0 Wild: uncultivated, uninhabited, or waste: wild country. Since the word "wild" connotes an absence of man the 'wildness' of something is inversely proportional to the number of people inhabiting it. Does a 'wild and scenic' designation mean a direction away from habitation of these 100's of rivers? What does it mean, in practice? The Blue, for example is pretty much 'habitated' already. A highway runs almost its entire length in Colorado. Would we ever consider a real wildness, ban humans from an area entirely? Do we love fish and wild places enough or do we just play lip service to the political gains of those who make these definitions? Halfordian Golfer It is impossible to catch and release a wild fish. |
#2
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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. |
#3
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#4
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 9, 7:09 pm, Halfordian Golfer wrote:
Certainly not upset Sandy, just the opposite in fact. I'm just curious what it means. Your pal, Tim Fair enough. I'm not qualified to say (what wild and scenic really means). Others will no doubt help to flesh this out. But I do know wild and scenic status has been a useful tool for opposing dam construction. I'm not particularly opposed to dams on the lower Missouri. But I'd fight hard and long against any dam on the upper Yellowstone, and I'd wield that wild and scenic stick as fast and hard as I could. Wild and scenic status also makes it easier for county (and state) governments to pass stream set back restrictions. Real estate agents in Big Sky have fought very hard to keep that status off the books for the Gallatin. That's like a corollary to guilt by association. You might call it "good by opposition." |
#5
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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)" hth g.c. |
#6
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "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. ![]() |
#7
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
On Sep 10, 12:15 am, George Cleveland
wrote: 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)" hth g.c.- Hide quoted text - - Show quoted text - A portion of the Westfield River watershed, near where I live is "Wild and Scenic". Basically all that means is that development on or near the river is limited. Notice I said limited, not prohibited. Dams are pretty much verboten, but other development continues, with some restrictions. |
#8
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
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 |
#9
|
|||
|
|||
![]() "Halfordian Golfer" wrote in message oups.com... It's hard to take an oxymoron like "wild and scenic" seriously. It's hard to take morons seriously. Unless of course you're referring to 'scenic' through the eyes of the wildlife. Actually, I tend to be rather selfish about this. I define as "scenic" those things that look that way to me. Again I wonder about the practical affect. Wondering is good. You should do more of that and less of blithering. This has a 'feel-good' ring to it but it seems to be a bit void or misleading. "Void" and "misleading" are two areas in which I suspect all of us should bow to your repeatedly demonstrated expertise. Let's make river "a" wild and scenic so we can suck the life out of river "b"? What a pity that the various treaties, agreements, protocols and what have you concerned with torture don't cover the abuses so many like you regularly inflict on logic and good sense. I can appreciate the Yellowstone being wild and scenic, I don't think that's true.....or anywhere in the neighborhood of truth, for that matter. but, it's such an arduous hike in the Grand Canyon to reach it, Burns more calories than you can suck out of it in an afternoon, huh? it is pretty safe, No, as long as the likes of you infest the world, NOTHING is safe. and, being nestled in the most protected NP in the world, seems a little redundant? So? TBone A cash flow runs through it Imbecile. Wolfgang |
#10
|
|||
|
|||
![]()
Hi Tim:
Perhaps the terminology (wild, scenic, etc) is not so important. There is a bureaucrat intention here. The idea is to somehow protect the river--to make it impossible, for instance, to dam the river, to make it harder to build fast food restaurants and sewage lagoons in the flood plain. What something is counts more than what you call it. Conservatives say they want to take government out of our lives. But they're the ones who want to tell us what not to smoke and how and when who to have sex with. So look more closely at the results than the advertisements. Speaking of which, did you hear the latest on Larry Craig? ......born in Idaho, but(t) reared all over (did I hear that here, in this news group?). |
|
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
![]() |
||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Info on "Slip-on" "Bait Jail" needed | Fins | Bass Fishing | 0 | March 7th, 2007 03:05 PM |
Rainbow trout on "OK to eat" list in Colorado | [email protected] | Fly Fishing | 0 | September 9th, 2006 09:28 PM |
Missing Woman Case Turns Into "Fish Tale" | Garrison Hilliard | Catfish Fishing | 0 | May 4th, 2006 02:59 PM |
My new book "Fly Fishing Warm Water Rivers" or How I learned to stop worrying and love my credit limit | Cornmuse | Fly Fishing | 2 | October 23rd, 2005 02:33 PM |