Sign this petition-help maintain access to YOUR public land!
#1
Sign this petition-help maintain access to YOUR public land!
Last edited by V8 Level II; 09-14-2007 at 05:39 PM.
#14
Unregistered User
Posts: n/a
Are you guys really sure of what you are supporting?
I'm afraid I won't be supporting this issue, as presented by the parties involved as a result of a little research into the organization and it's backers.
One glaring instance is the involvement of Mr. Richard Pombo, former member of the House of Representatives.
The following is copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article on this individual...
Pombo has proposed legislation to sell roughly a quarter of the land managed by the National Park Service. In November 2005, Pombo and Jim Gibbons (R-NV) co-authored an amendment to the Federal Budget Reconciliation Bill easing restrictions of sale of federal lands to mining companies. This amendment was opposed by environmentalists, anti-growth advocates, and even some Republican Senators concerned about the measure's effects on hunting and fishing.[5] The amendment narrowly passed the House, but was defeated in the Senate. The legislation was later described by his chief of staff as a "bureaucratic exercise" designed to evaluate the costs of not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Pombo has likewise pushed for oil drilling in the ANWR, despite concerns about the fragile ecosystem and opposition from moderate Republicans. [4].
In September 2005, Pombo helped rewrite the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The proposed revision "was widely denounced by environmentalists as a disturbing retreat from habitat protection and a paperwork nightmare for agencies seeking to revive the 1,268 threatened and endangered plants and animals in the country, 186 of which are in California."[6]
By March 2006, Environmental Science & Technology reported that Pombo was coordinating efforts with Pac/West Communications to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pac/West has created the Save Our Species Alliance, an anti-environmental front group that is campaigning for Pombo's bill to change the ESA.[7]
The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan PAC, assigned Pombo a lifetime average rating of 7 on a scale of 0 to 100. In 2005, he scored a 6. Subsequently, the organization has also named Pombo as one of the "Dirty Dozen" in 2006 [5]. LCV released an ad on October 31, 2006, citing Pombo's acceptance of $120,000 from oil companies and his ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff [6].
For his anti-environment views, the magazine Rolling Stone ranked him one of the worst congressmen and called him "Enemy of the Earth" [7].
As the chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Pombo blocked legislation that would have created the Wild Sky Wilderness area in Washington state, despite broad support for the bill.
The whole article can be found here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pombo
His involvement in the organization that sponsors the petition is documented on their website...
http://www.access-advocates.org/background.htm
You may well save public land from being classified as wilderness, only to see it sold for comercial devlopment in the future. Not a good tradeoff in my humble opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken
I'm afraid I won't be supporting this issue, as presented by the parties involved as a result of a little research into the organization and it's backers.
One glaring instance is the involvement of Mr. Richard Pombo, former member of the House of Representatives.
The following is copied and pasted from the Wikipedia article on this individual...
Pombo has proposed legislation to sell roughly a quarter of the land managed by the National Park Service. In November 2005, Pombo and Jim Gibbons (R-NV) co-authored an amendment to the Federal Budget Reconciliation Bill easing restrictions of sale of federal lands to mining companies. This amendment was opposed by environmentalists, anti-growth advocates, and even some Republican Senators concerned about the measure's effects on hunting and fishing.[5] The amendment narrowly passed the House, but was defeated in the Senate. The legislation was later described by his chief of staff as a "bureaucratic exercise" designed to evaluate the costs of not drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge (ANWR).
Pombo has likewise pushed for oil drilling in the ANWR, despite concerns about the fragile ecosystem and opposition from moderate Republicans. [4].
In September 2005, Pombo helped rewrite the 1973 Endangered Species Act. The proposed revision "was widely denounced by environmentalists as a disturbing retreat from habitat protection and a paperwork nightmare for agencies seeking to revive the 1,268 threatened and endangered plants and animals in the country, 186 of which are in California."[6]
By March 2006, Environmental Science & Technology reported that Pombo was coordinating efforts with Pac/West Communications to weaken the Endangered Species Act (ESA). Pac/West has created the Save Our Species Alliance, an anti-environmental front group that is campaigning for Pombo's bill to change the ESA.[7]
The League of Conservation Voters, a nonpartisan PAC, assigned Pombo a lifetime average rating of 7 on a scale of 0 to 100. In 2005, he scored a 6. Subsequently, the organization has also named Pombo as one of the "Dirty Dozen" in 2006 [5]. LCV released an ad on October 31, 2006, citing Pombo's acceptance of $120,000 from oil companies and his ties to indicted lobbyist Jack Abramoff [6].
For his anti-environment views, the magazine Rolling Stone ranked him one of the worst congressmen and called him "Enemy of the Earth" [7].
As the chairman of the House Resources Committee, Rep. Pombo blocked legislation that would have created the Wild Sky Wilderness area in Washington state, despite broad support for the bill.
The whole article can be found here...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Pombo
His involvement in the organization that sponsors the petition is documented on their website...
http://www.access-advocates.org/background.htm
You may well save public land from being classified as wilderness, only to see it sold for comercial devlopment in the future. Not a good tradeoff in my humble opinion.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ken
#16
This thing is so bogus. Who wrote it? It says that it is to protect the environment--but by keeping backcountry roads? I don't get it.
I personally find nothing wrong with having some dirt roads into the backcountry, and I use them myself, but I also appreciate the creation of new wilderness areas if there are good reasons like getting some griz and wolves back into the US, and stopping species declines and extinctions. There is a ton of science on how roads negatively impact species, espcieally from roadkill and poaching.
Personally I want my grandkids to not only have recreation areas for backroad driving, but have all the other benefits that I have enjoyed, like seeing bears fish wild salmon out of rivers. To see things like that maybe we'll need to protect some new areas that are sufficient in size or sufficiently wild, and we'll just have to get out of our trucks to get to 'em. Or not go into them and just feel glad that some wild places and wildlife still exist.
I personally find nothing wrong with having some dirt roads into the backcountry, and I use them myself, but I also appreciate the creation of new wilderness areas if there are good reasons like getting some griz and wolves back into the US, and stopping species declines and extinctions. There is a ton of science on how roads negatively impact species, espcieally from roadkill and poaching.
Personally I want my grandkids to not only have recreation areas for backroad driving, but have all the other benefits that I have enjoyed, like seeing bears fish wild salmon out of rivers. To see things like that maybe we'll need to protect some new areas that are sufficient in size or sufficiently wild, and we'll just have to get out of our trucks to get to 'em. Or not go into them and just feel glad that some wild places and wildlife still exist.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
CjRanger99
General Ford Ranger Discussion
19
07-05-2005 08:17 PM