Not Super Happy About This....

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
220
So as i read this, "hospitality service contract" so xanterra probably has a voice... I've always questioned their motives. They say Aramark is on it which is kind of freaky. and "those from all-terrain-vehicle industries" so does that mean arctic cat or something? mmmmmhhhhh. What seems weird (but makes sense) is that they are citing "involvement of outdoor rec industries" but seem to neglect those that have interests in preserving land like REI etc etc. Is it really surprising? of course not, government works this way unfortunately but is it still annoying and dumb? yes.
 

b.stark

Forever Wandering
.
Joined
Apr 8, 2015
Messages
565
USA National Natural Money Mint. It's a shame that money talks in such a way, when money isn't everything, and some things are better than money.
 

Udink

Keep going.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,307
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
 
Joined
Aug 31, 2015
Messages
220
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
Yeah honestly, like thankfully through the tutelage of my political science/history professor i've become anesthized to presidents. In the end the same revolving door of people make it onto these committees and it's been going on for hundreds of years. Nothing's really changed, but for me its all just a bureaucratic blegh that honestly will happen either way.
 

Shirt357

Member
.
Joined
Jan 24, 2017
Messages
251
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
I am not political nor do I prefer to engage in any sort of conversation concerning them. In today's world it seems that leads to lost friends, family, etc. since some are unable to have a discussion ( or know the definition of that word lol). I think that it does not matter who is in office.. which party is in power... etc. People on both sides of the aisle should be looking to protect the natural wonders for our kids, grandkids, etc. Perhaps we need a more non-bias way to deem the best way to protect the environment... something that does not involve money interests.
I do agree with you though. If we all want change... we need to be out there fighting for it and not just complaining about it.
 

Reef&Ruins

Member
Joined
Feb 3, 2017
Messages
335
I just wanted balance because I knew the guy was going to listen to industry, so listen to all of it please.
Also, I'm not really interested in a "giant get lost" to anyone, actually. I think you have me pegged differently than I actually am. I don't backpack much nor do I do serious canyoneering or anything like it. Would I? Sure! Do I? No, because the life I have at the moment won't work with it that way. But I am serious about having wild spaces where I can go visit in peace and quiet.
 

slc_dan

Desert Rat-Weekend Warrior
Joined
Jun 7, 2012
Messages
1,659
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
I hear you on the partisan bickering. I also agree annoying manner of back and forth on our public lands policy.

I disagree that critique of Zinke has been because one side lost though. It's a bit more than saying FU to the half of the country that wants parking lots to be closer. I heard several people say, "It's not going to change public lands," before all the monument retraction stuff happened. Well, now they are clearly get sold to extraction companies, and they were behind a lot of that. I would have written my representatives about that had Clinton won, just as I wrote them about many public lands issues while Obama was president.
 

Deleted User

Deleted User
Joined
Aug 5, 2016
Messages
295
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
My interest in protecting public lands has nothing to do with presidential elections or their results. My interest in protecting our public lands comes from wanting there to be wild places for us to explore undisturbed by development and those who would manipulate these lands for profit.

They said the reduction of Bears Ears and GSENM had nothing to do with extraction. Then they sell the permits for extraction after they reduce the monument. Someone is lying here and it is surely not me, or those who were against these reductions.

Always follow the money. It was plain as day what their intent was. Even the court ordered emails released showing that was the main intent. The Tribune did a story on this just this month.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2018/03/02/interior-department-emails-show-oil-and-coal-played-a-big-role-in-bears-ears-grand-staircase-monument-redraws/
 
Last edited:

Absarokanaut

Member
Joined
Sep 17, 2014
Messages
572
The late Tip O'Neill is credited with the now common saying "All politics is local." If the Speaker were alive today I bet he'd rethink that when it comes to Federal Lands. As Dr. Nebz said:

"They said the reduction of Bears Ears and GSENM had nothing to do with extraction. Then they sell the permits for extraction after they reduce the monument. Someone is lying here and it is surely not me, or those who were against these reductions. "

Of course the election had a lot to do with this but this goes well beyond having any purported contempt for the 109,000 people in Ohio, Michigan and , Wisconsin that effectively handed the electoral college to President Trump. The President indeed won, we certainly have to concede that; but he won with not only fewer votes than Secretary Clinton, he won with fewer votes than Mitt Romney and John McCain received in the respective elections they lost. This is about an agenda that is effectively trying to get back to its lucrative business of cutting the hamstrings of civilization and crippling responsible energy diversification to indulge the avarice of an absurd few that we have long labeled special interest. This is indeed about the children of the coming America and whether or not they come to value Federal Lands more than their parents have. If they do they will not exercise the complacency they did in 2016 and they will produce a turnout more in line with what President Obama did in his two victories.

You think it's just about recreational access? Please, think again. This is about the calculated disenfranchisement of the more than 300,000,000 Americans that own each and every acre of Federal Land in equal measure. This is about the health of civilization itself.
 

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Ben

Member
.
Joined
Sep 12, 2014
Messages
1,745
Boo-hoo. Isn't all this complaining really about who won/lost the presidential election? If Hillary Clinton was president now, and the representatives from the Outdoor Industry Association had made it into the committee, y'all would be okay with that? You're okay saying FU to the other < 50% of the country 'cause they think the "parking lot" should be a little closer than you do? I believe Trump is a giant pile of steaming turds, but I also think land policy decisions shouldn't be on the see-saw of whoever is chief commander of the day. Unfortunately, that's how our system works, and the voice of the people is being played out now 'cause y'all couldn't muster enough votes. Either way, a large portion of the population is gonna be unhappy.
I think it's pretty shitty to just dismiss any one who's unhappy about this as being a sore loser about the election. I didn't like Clinton or Trump, and I don't like this. Most people's opinions aren't simply the result of who happens to be president.

Your whole post really kind of reeks of the same political bickering it sounds like you're tired of.
 

Udink

Keep going.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,307
I think it's pretty shitty to just dismiss any one who's unhappy about this as being a sore loser about the election. I didn't like Clinton or Trump, and I don't like this. Most people's opinions aren't simply the result of who happens to be president.

Your whole post really kind of reeks of the same political bickering it sounds like you're tired of.
Fair enough. However, the article (which my comment was directed at, and not at any one BCP member) pretty much reads, "Trump's appointee chose whoever he wanted to be on the committee." How else can you frame the discussion (as in, the voters are having their say)? I threw away my vote by voting Libertarian, so I'd be a sore loser no matter the outcome. If Hillary had won the presidential election, I don't think we'd have a bunch of Trump supporters on BCP complaining that Clinton chose a bunch of Outdoor Industry Association nominees to be on her committee. That's where I take issue with all the complainerators (<-- new word coined by me maybe).

I think a huge majority of us on this forum could agree on a few key items:

(1) Enforce ARPA vigorously
(2) Fund ALL federal agencies in support of #1
(3) Don't advertise (i.e., "designate") lands to the detriment of #1
(4) Maybe don't close a bunch of roads in support of #1 - #3 (perhaps I'm unique in feeling that way?)

I feel like Jim Stiles here, but, c'mon. Enforce the laws, don't draw more crowds than the land can handle. Save it for those who really care enough to simply explore rather than those who read about it in an effing guidebook from someone who is only out to make some quick cash because of a rash presidential decision.
 

regehr

Member
Joined
Mar 28, 2012
Messages
1,037
Enforce the laws, don't draw more crowds than the land can handle.
Vaguely on this topic, I was out on the Spur Road the other day and it had just been bladed and I noticed that the copious slickrock didn't have those rows of grooves that slickrock gets when the bottom of a blade passes over it repeatedly. It occurred to me that maybe the guy who blades that road isn't that interested in knocking down the bumps and turning it into a low-clearance road. No idea if that's the actual thought process, but if so I'm all for it.
 

Udink

Keep going.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
1,307
Vaguely on this topic, I was out on the Spur Road the other day and it had just been bladed and I noticed that the copious slickrock didn't have those rows of grooves that slickrock gets when the bottom of a blade passes over it repeatedly. It occurred to me that maybe the guy who blades that road isn't that interested in knocking down the bumps and turning it into a low-clearance road. No idea if that's the actual thought process, but if so I'm all for it.
Funny you should mention that, because this past weekend I drove many miles of roads on the east side of the Green River that did have those grooves. I think it's a Grand County thing, 'cause I don't think I've seen them in Emery or Wayne counties.
 

IntrepidXJ

ADVENTR
.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
3,129
Vaguely on this topic, I was out on the Spur Road the other day and it had just been bladed and I noticed that the copious slickrock didn't have those rows of grooves that slickrock gets when the bottom of a blade passes over it repeatedly. It occurred to me that maybe the guy who blades that road isn't that interested in knocking down the bumps and turning it into a low-clearance road. No idea if that's the actual thought process, but if so I'm all for it.
I didn't think the graders purposely did that to the slickrock. I believe those are areas that used to have dirt/sand over them that have now eroded away.
 

IntrepidXJ

ADVENTR
.
Joined
Jan 17, 2012
Messages
3,129
Funny you should mention that, because this past weekend I drove many miles of roads on the east side of the Green River that did have those grooves. I think it's a Grand County thing, 'cause I don't think I've seen them in Emery or Wayne counties.
Definitely seen it in San Juan County before.
 

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Similar threads

Don't like ads? Become a BCP Supporting Member and kiss them all goodbye. Click here for more info.

Top