100's of Colorado rivers could be classified "wild and scenic"

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.

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.

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

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."

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.

"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.

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.

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

"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

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?).