The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

On 30 Nov 2004 17:30:35 GMT, (Jonathan Cook) wrote:


.....Moreover, the best public land has _already_ been given away to
private owners (homesteading act(s?), OK sooners and all that), ....

... railroads...

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/11/2...es/26FISH.html
I like the part where they call $75,000 up front and $5,000
a year a "modest investment."

You guys weren't paying any ****ing attention were you?

TBone

--
Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
. com...
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/11/2...es/26FISH.html
I like the part where they call $75,000 up front and $5,000
a year a "modest investment."

You guys weren't paying any ****ing attention were you?

TBone

--
Halfordian Golfer
A cash flow runs through it.

On Wed, 1 Dec 2004 19:23:51 -0700, "Halfordian Golfer"
wrote:

"Ken Fortenberry" wrote in message
.com...
http://travel2.nytimes.com/2004/11/2...es/26FISH.html
I like the part where they call $75,000 up front and $5,000
a year a "modest investment."

You guys weren't paying any ****ing attention were you?

TBone


but a river runs through it ....:-)

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 10:45:24 -0800, "JR" wrote:

Jonathan Cook wrote

The public is _entitled_ to the land simply _because_ it is public
land. The federal government aquired the land either through
purchasing or through ceding of land from defeats in war. It was
never _owned_ by private citizens of the US and so it is owned by
"the public". The government is allowed to put policy in place as
to how to use that land, and if it wants to allow "the public" to
use it for recreation, then "the public" is _entitled_ to such
use.

It is unfortunate (although I confess to great grudging admiration of the
skill involved) that the terms of public discourse have so effectively been
twisted by ultra-conservatives over the past two decades that otherwise very
intelligent people take this distinction, ("federal government" vs. "the
public"), as some inherently, necessarily adversarial dichotomy. Private
citizens have always owned the public lands of the U.S., just collectively
rather than separately, individually.

The People of the United States own the Public Domain. All of us. Equally.
This is a simple concept. It is, however, literally, historically
revolutionary, which is why many people, even citizens who in fact are
themselves the owners of the land, have a hard time getting their heads
around the whole notion. In the U.S., "the State" does not own public
lands; the People do, as a commonwealth. We have merely chosen to confer
management and care--as we do various for other public functions--to various
levels governments ("of the people," remember?): federal, state, local.

From 1791 to 1867, the People of the United States acquired, through the
means Jon mentioned, a Public Domain of around 1.84 billion acres
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-1_01.pdf, and between 1871 and the
present, the People have disposed of around 1.27 billion of those.
http://www.blm.gov/natacq/pls01/pls1-2_01.pdf.

Now, it's valid, I think, for the People to debate policies of management of
our common lands, including I suppose whether we want to dispose of more of
them, but I think the debate is wrongly skewed if we, the Owners, allow
ourselves to begin to be convinced that the State owns our land, or that
only a small minority ("users") have some separate, unfair claim on the land
that is somehow being "subsidized" by an abused majority ("taxpayers").

It isn't the mere ownership that is the _biggest_ abuse, it's the costs
associated with its use for VERY limited purposes. As you say, it currently
belongs to all citizens, yet only someone, for example, who wishes to merely
walk around or CnR with a flyrod can make any use of some of it. Opie can't
ride his ATV on "his" land, you can't fish with a spinning rig, much less keep
"your" fish, John Q. Public can't target practice on much of "his" land (as
opposed to _his_ land), etc. And on some of it, the public isn't even allowed.
And if you think the majority supports this system, you're dreaming. I'd offer
the majority hasn't a clue, and that includes a fair portion of the minority who
use "their" land.

Moreover, if you think a minority of a relative few using commerce clause
navigability claims to keep some waters that aren't in any fashion commercial
waterways "public" for fishing isn't an abuse of the majority, your rational
must be interesting.

TC,
R

On Tue, 30 Nov 2004 13:40:21 -0500, William Claspy wrote:

On 11/30/04 12:30 PM, in article , "Jonathan
Cook" wrote:

Of course, it is forgivable for Texans not to understand these
things. Texas came into the Union quite differently, and as a
result it has almost zero public land.

Well, zero plus the 800,000 or so acres in Big Bend NP. (Though there is
zero Bureau of Livestock and Mining* land in Texas.)

Bill

*Abbey, Edward

And AFAIK, there is no private running water in Texas, plus given the "land
grant"/English common law court rulings, access to the bank is, at least in
practice, "public."

TC,
R

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:16:55 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:

wrote:


It isn't the mere ownership that is the _biggest_ abuse, it's the costs
associated with its use for VERY limited purposes. As you say, it currently
belongs to all citizens, yet only someone, for example, who wishes to merely
walk around or CnR with a flyrod can make any use of some of it. Opie can't
ride his ATV on "his" land, you can't fish with a spinning rig, much less keep
"your" fish, John Q. Public can't target practice on much of "his" land (as
opposed to _his_ land), etc. And on some of it, the public isn't even allowed.
And if you think the majority supports this system, you're dreaming. I'd offer
the majority hasn't a clue, and that includes a fair portion of the minority who
use "their" land.

Yeah us peons is just plain dumb.......

And you have some sort of chip on your shoulder, too...

If what you say is in anyway true, I find it interesting that in
Colorado with approximately 50% of the State already being public lands,
the voters have passed measures to use increasingly larger amounts of
the State's funds for acquisitions of more public lands. (and CO is a
Repub state that has had a serious downturn in its economy)

And just how many voters have passed these measures?

During the
present financial difficulties in the State, the gov has tried a variety
of tactics to use funds earmarked for the acquisition of new public
lands for other purposes, but the public has said no.

Again, how many voters have said no?

But I forgot, us peons is being duped.......

Even among people that never use our public lands, a large majority
support maintaining our public lands and protecting them from
development. It's our land, we like the way it is being managed, you
don't like it, tough ****.

"We?" Is this another of the famous ROFF "I know what _everybody_ thinks and
speak for them..." ditties? And if the "we" you are referring to as liking (it)
are the citizens of CO, the votes you mentioned must have been 100% turnout with
100% voting the same way, right?

By-the-by, how far down from the Taylor Reservoir dam have you fished?

TC,
R

wrote:

It isn't the mere ownership that is the _biggest_ abuse, it's the costs
associated with its use for VERY limited purposes.

If you're referring to give-aways to mining and logging and grazing
interests, I completely agree.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote:

It isn't the mere ownership that is the _biggest_ abuse, it's the costs
associated with its use for VERY limited purposes.

If you're referring to give-aways to mining and logging and grazing
interests, I completely agree.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.

wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 07:16:55 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:


wrote:


It isn't the mere ownership that is the _biggest_ abuse, it's the costs
associated with its use for VERY limited purposes. As you say, it currently
belongs to all citizens, yet only someone, for example, who wishes to merely
walk around or CnR with a flyrod can make any use of some of it. Opie can't
ride his ATV on "his" land, you can't fish with a spinning rig, much less keep
"your" fish, John Q. Public can't target practice on much of "his" land (as
opposed to _his_ land), etc. And on some of it, the public isn't even allowed.
And if you think the majority supports this system, you're dreaming. I'd offer
the majority hasn't a clue, and that includes a fair portion of the minority who
use "their" land.

Yeah us peons is just plain dumb.......


And you have some sort of chip on your shoulder, too...


Yeah, I find it offensive that you treat the "common man" with disdain.




If what you say is in anyway true, I find it interesting that in
Colorado with approximately 50% of the State already being public lands,
the voters have passed measures to use increasingly larger amounts of
the State's funds for acquisitions of more public lands. (and CO is a
Repub state that has had a serious downturn in its economy)


And just how many voters have passed these measures?

The last one was close to 70%




During the
present financial difficulties in the State, the gov has tried a variety
of tactics to use funds earmarked for the acquisition of new public
lands for other purposes, but the public has said no.


Again, how many voters have said no?

Over 70%



But I forgot, us peons is being duped.......

Even among people that never use our public lands, a large majority
support maintaining our public lands and protecting them from
development. It's our land, we like the way it is being managed, you
don't like it, tough ****.


"We?" Is this another of the famous ROFF "I know what _everybody_ thinks and
speak for them..." ditties? And if the "we" you are referring to as liking (it)
are the citizens of CO, the votes you mentioned must have been 100% turnout with
100% voting the same way, right?

That's stupid assertion. Except in some small communities when voting on
a local issue, it just doesn't happen that a majority of the people vote
in favor or against anything. You can get a sizable majority of the
people that are voting, but VERY rarely get even a majority of all the
people.

In addition to voting, my information is based on surveys (some of them
done by groups supporting privatization of public lands). Do some
research, you'll see that clearly the citizenship rejects development
and/or privatization of public lands.



By-the-by, how far down from the Taylor Reservoir dam have you fished?

It's a circus below Taylor - huge "mysis dam fed" trout, not my cup of
tea. I've never fished it. From what I understand there are problems
lower down with fish kills from irrigation draws. However, there is lots
of water in the area I do like.

Willi