Grand Junction Comments

By Chuck Shepard

July 4, 2009 10:59 AM | Link to this

Mark,

The roadless rule is not a good, nor bad thing, some people want all activity to be restricted in “wilderness” and back country areas, these are people with blinders over their eyes, we need roads into all areas for fire fighting, logging out the beatle kill, allowing small companies, and individuals in the harvest firewood for their own use, or for sale, thus cutting down on fire fuel, opening timber stands for the movement of wildlife, hunters, horseback riders, etc.

By making our public lands “public”, not “special interest” lands every one wins, and everyone is held responsible for any damage they do, ei..loggers for years have plant 2 trees for every one they cut, firewooders can do the same thing, IF they have seedlings available, plant seedlings in lieu of buying permits.

When all these holier than thou special interest groups what to shut off an area, THEY have to fund an economical, AND environmental impact statement, the economical impact statement must show the ALL the effects, on businesses and people who make a living from the area. They would be required to project that into a 10 year analysis, then post a cash bond for 150% of the results into a locked fund to re-reimburse those adversely affected for lost production and wages, BEFORE anything even goes to commity to be considered. Now we will see just how adamant they are about their petty little dictatorial ideas, when they have to fund these ideas instead of the government, most of them won’t be worth the effort, but the good ones will.

Just some “oh no”, common sense ideas for an old rancher, and Colo native

By Wes44

July 6, 2009 3:12 PM | Link to this

Our National Forests belong to all of us. The Roadless Rule came out of the most extensive public process in Federal Rulemaking history. Over 95% of the 1.6 million public comments were in favor of the strong federal protections provided by the Rule.

The state-by-state process that Colorado is using was set up precisely to undermine those popular protections. Some misguided, though perhaps well-intentioned folks spun it as a backstop in case Bush was successful in throwing out the Rule all-together. Now that we have an administration that supports the Rule, even that justification is gone.

The Colorado Rule is weaker than the National Rule, riddled with loopholes and giveaways, and unpopular amongst sporting groups like The Teddy Roosevelt Conservation Partnership, recreationists, and environmentalists alike.

It’s time to stop the distraction and get to work on protecting what’s left of the pristine roadless backountry that remains in our National Forests — Nationally.

By Seldom Seen in Aspen

July 7, 2009 2:50 PM | Link to this

Great article, well balanced and reasonable. Might add that no surface use oil and gas leases in areas where directional drilling from BLM lands or private lands could be a bonanza for the State and Federal coffers while still protecting the natural beauty and seclusion from modern life that is really priceless in “Colorful Colorado”. Drilling technology can reach out to 3,000 feet in some areas with potential to create literally billions of dollars in revenue for the public good with no surface use.

I think that this kind of governing, common sense governing, with money going back into the agency impacted is the only way to sustain our economy that is becoming increasingly dependent on tax revenue as more and more people work for government and as tax burdens on those generating the taxes continues to increase.

Mindless rubber stamps are the sign of a dying democracy and an emerging socialist state. We also need to divert funds to the agencies/people impacted when these royalties are generated. Think how much expansion of government lands could occur with this much money being diverted for more land acquistions and increasing the pay on overburdened understaffed foresters, wildlife and range managers.