The Future of Fly Fishing in America ?

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:10:45 GMT, rw 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.

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

Hmmm...and so, it may the "their" land, too, but if they want to use it in a way
you don't like, then, well, **** this "it belongs to us all" nonsense...well,
good to see the ROFFian hypocrisy contingent is at least consistent...

wrote:



I'll take your word for it. So we have 70% of 70% - 49% percent of the voters,
so the majority of the citizenry has either spoken against your position or
remained silent for whatever reason.


What kind of math is that??? It wasn't just the people that voted for
the acquisition of the land that were allowed to vote on a different use
for some of those funds. Approximately 70% of all voters voted for the
acquisition of new public land. In a later election, over 70% of all
voters rejected an initiative to allow a portion of those appropriated
funds to be moved into the general budget.


Willi

wrote:



I'll take your word for it. So we have 70% of 70% - 49% percent of the voters,
so the majority of the citizenry has either spoken against your position or
remained silent for whatever reason.


What kind of math is that??? It wasn't just the people that voted for
the acquisition of the land that were allowed to vote on a different use
for some of those funds. Approximately 70% of all voters voted for the
acquisition of new public land. In a later election, over 70% of all
voters rejected an initiative to allow a portion of those appropriated
funds to be moved into the general budget.


Willi

wrote:

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:13:49 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:


Er, no, not entirely accurate. You can't fish RIGHT below the dam (yeah, it may
be "your" land, "your" water, "your" fish, but...), but you can fish for a short
stretch below that, and then, it's private for a lot longer stretch than the
"public" stretch. The public stretch must be maintained, cleaned up (not all of
"the public" is as tidy as others), etc., and as you said, it's a circus. The
private stretch is clean, healthier, and closer to its natural state.


That is an issue of use. If something gets used heavily, ie it's popular
with people, then there will be maintenance.

The lower stretches may be cleaner (probably mainly because fewer people
use them) but healthier and closer to the natural state? It's the lower
stretches (including the private stretches) that have had the fish kills
in recent years due to irrigation usage. There was a heavy kill in the
lower stretches a few years back. And alfalfa fields and grazing cattle
are closer to its natural state?

Willi

wrote:
On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 15:10:45 GMT, rw 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.

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


Hmmm...and so, it may the "their" land, too, but if they want to use it in a way
you don't like, then, well, **** this "it belongs to us all" nonsense...well,
good to see the ROFFian hypocrisy contingent is at least consistent...

There's a big difference between charging below-market prices for rights
to profit-making mining, logging, and grazing interests (WAY below
market) on the one hand (activities that often degrade the land), and
managing public lands for public recreation on the other. But I don't
expect you to see that difference.

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

Dave Snedeker writes:

I would include the
stealing of Indian lands in Oklahoma, and the stealing of the land of
Mexican Americans in Texas.

*And*, the injuns got screwed out of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, New York, sigh, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (why the hell would injuns
want NJ?), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, W. Virginia, big sigh, all the
Carolinas, and Florida, Georgia, Alabamer, Louisianer, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Tenn......getting tired...... make it easy.... *all* of the U.S., Mexico,
Canada, Central America, South America, whew.....and how can we forget the
Caribbean (?).

Ah, gee, we're all furenors aren't we?

Dave LaCourse wrote:

*And*, the injuns got screwed out of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, New York, sigh, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (why the hell would injuns
want NJ?), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, W. Virginia, big sigh, all the
Carolinas, and Florida, Georgia, Alabamer, Louisianer, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Tenn......getting tired...... make it easy.... *all* of the U.S., Mexico,
Canada, Central America, South America, whew.....and how can we forget the
Caribbean (?).

Ah, gee, we're all furenors aren't we?

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

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

On Fri, 03 Dec 2004 03:44:06 GMT, rw wrote:

Dave LaCourse wrote:

*And*, the injuns got screwed out of Massachusetts, Maine, Vermont, New
Hampshire, New York, sigh, Pennsylvania, New Jersey (why the hell would injuns
want NJ?), Delaware, Maryland, Virginia, W. Virginia, big sigh, all the
Carolinas, and Florida, Georgia, Alabamer, Louisianer, Mississippi, Kentucky,
Tenn......getting tired...... make it easy.... *all* of the U.S., Mexico,
Canada, Central America, South America, whew.....and how can we forget the
Caribbean (?).

Ah, gee, we're all furenors aren't we?

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Oooooh...NOW I get it...it was stolen and the theft is a stain on national
heritage, but the "public" is entitled to it, and as long as the "public" can
fly fish (or whatever) on it, it's all good...but those that would want to pay,
however much, to use it are just a bunch of thieves...ah, yes, consistency,
consistency...

rw opines:

It's a very serious stain on our national heritage, not unlike slavery.

Really? Why don't you give back your piece of land in Idaho and California?
That would remove any "stain" you might have. As for me, think I'll stay
"stained".

On Thu, 02 Dec 2004 08:47:34 -0700, Willi & Sue wrote:

wrote:



I'll take your word for it. So we have 70% of 70% - 49% percent of the voters,
so the majority of the citizenry has either spoken against your position or
remained silent for whatever reason.


What kind of math is that???

It's the kind that results from:

" And just how many voters have passed these measures?

The last one was close to 70%" and

" Again, how many voters have said no?

Over 70%"


It wasn't just the people that voted for
the acquisition of the land that were allowed to vote on a different use
for some of those funds. Approximately 70% of all voters voted for the
acquisition of new public land. In a later election, over 70% of all
voters rejected an initiative to allow a portion of those appropriated
funds to be moved into the general budget.

OK, now, as you _appear_ to be restating it, I don't simply take your word for
what you appear to be trying to say: that all (potential) voters voted, and 70%
of them voted, simply put, for (more) "public lands." I'm not saying it's
impossible, or that you're wrong, just that I won't readily accept that two such
elections had a turnout such that the above numbers are accurate, as the above
_seems_ to imply "70% of all voters voted for the acquisition..." IOW, it
could also be accurately said that 100% of voters voted - obvious, but accurate.

OTOH, if what you are really saying is that 70% of those who voted cast their
vote as you state, that's a different implication as that could have been a
turnout of 10 voters, 7 of whom voted as you say. In any case, I'll be happy to
look at something that shows some actual data.


TC,
R

Willi