Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post Reply
User avatar
historik951
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:07 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by historik951 »

That was just dumb..... First of all the guy was only allotted time because someone else finished short. Second, he's talking about environmental issues that don't allow the border patrol to protect the border. Which if true, would make the environmentalist REALLY look bad.. The video basically says that the rules are STRICTLY enforced, to the point where even the border patrol aren't even allowed in ?!?!? Something just doesn't sound right....In my opinion

H951
Dezertfox
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:02 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Dezertfox »

The only thing not true in that video, The congressman keeps stating the BLM/FS owns
those lands, They do not own, they manage. Other than that its spot on

The Fox
User avatar
historik951
Posts: 108
Joined: Sat Jan 15, 2011 10:07 pm
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4
Location: SoCal
Contact:

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by historik951 »

I wasn't disputing whether he was telling the truth or not, just that it doesn't completely pertain to our subject ( it does partly, but not wholly ). It does show just how strict the BLM can be about access though. Personally, if the border patrol needs access to certain roads or places, they should be given ABSOLUTE access. To say that they are not allowed ( just like the rest of us ) just doesn't make sense, especially if it's a matter of national security ( like the guy on the tape said ).
Dezertfox
Posts: 15
Joined: Mon Jun 28, 2010 7:02 am
anti-spam detector: No
The middle number please (4): 4

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Dezertfox »

It does show just how strict the BLM can be about access though
You really cant fault BLM in this particular case, BLM has to follow the law per congressional designation of no mechanized access to any wilderness period. It would take an congressional amendment to a particular wilderness area that needs access for something as sensible as a cherry stem road to patrol the border or even a fire road. It would never happen because (Back to thread topic) the extremest environmental lobby would fight such a concept. It all comes down to politics and who makes these laws, How they are interpreted,flawed, and in some case, how their intent gets turned against their original purpose.

Fox
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Dan »

Dezertfox wrote:
It does show just how strict the BLM can be about access though
You really cant fault BLM in this particular case, BLM has to follow the law per congressional designation of no mechanized access to any wilderness period. It would take an congressional amendment to a particular wilderness area that needs access for something as sensible as a cherry stem road to patrol the border or even a fire road. It would never happen because (Back to thread topic) the extremest environmental lobby would fight such a concept. It all comes down to politics and who makes these laws, How they are interpreted,flawed, and in some case, how their intent gets turned against their original purpose.

Fox
Amen, Desertfox. The term often used is "unintended consequences". Turning the purpose around 180 degrees to its intent in existing laws and regulations is precisely the reason extremism should be shunned, environmental or otherwise. When we look back to what our founders intent was, there are many things about what our federal government is doing today that are diametrically opposed to those views. Our founders created a Constitution for the purpose of shedding the tyranny they knew would be always pounding at the door. And here we are some 222 years later, once again debating the very things they already knew, with people who presume to know better than us, better than our founders, and better than those who fought and died to preserve our founders principles of individual liberty, personal responsibility, and limited government.
User avatar
Space Cowboy
Posts: 213
Joined: Fri Apr 10, 2009 3:59 am
The middle number please (4): 7

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Space Cowboy »

As an aside: Myer Valley is south of I-8, along the Mexican border, Between Davies Valley and the high ground of the Jacumba Valley. It has been designated off-limits since the 1950's, although I don't know why. If you look at the USGS map for the area, there are no roads, structures or mines in Myer Valley, although in fact all of that is there, its just that closed off, even the official maps don't give you info. Before the turn of the century, I was talking to a BLM ranger who bragged that the roads in Myer Valley were so far gone that pretty soon even his quad wouldn't be able to make it. Last year an article appeared in the San Diego Reader entitled: "Don't Go To Myer Valley!" because the writer had had a such a horrific experience hiking in the pre-historic terrain of Myer Valley, he felt compelled to warn everyone away. On several backpacking trips I've taken back there in Spring, many years ago now, my hiking buddies and I marveled at how the roads disappeared under the carpets of desert wildflowers.

Fast-forward to last month, we hiked back into Myer Valley to find the roads practically graded right to the border, with turn-outs and turn-arounds and fresh tire tracks. We came across a parked Border Patrol Suburban and had lunch with it in sight, although the agent never showed. We're not allowed to drive in there, haven't been for sixty years, but the Border Patrol is.
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Sal »

When we look back to what our founders intent was, there are many things about what our federal government is doing today that are diametrically opposed to those views.
Our founders were a diverse group. Their collective intent was codified in our US Constitution. Judges are appointed or elected to interpret laws per the Constitution.

I don't think it makes sense for the public to pay heed to the utterances of what the founders' intent was when those statements reinforce the self interest of the people making them.
:roll:
Dan
Posts: 1624
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 2:49 pm

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Dan »

Sal wrote:
When we look back to what our founders intent was, there are many things about what our federal government is doing today that are diametrically opposed to those views.
Our founders were a diverse group. Their collective intent was codified in our US Constitution. Judges are appointed or elected to interpret laws per the Constitution.

I don't think it makes sense for the public to pay heed to the utterances of what the founders' intent was when those statements reinforce the self interest of the people making them.
:roll:

All too often, judges ignore the founders' views on a concept called "judicial restraint". Some of these judges go well beyond the interpretation of what's in the Constitution and begin making up legislation that simply is not there. It's called "judicial activism", and it comes almost exclusively from judges with a distinctly liberal view (political left). They veiw it as their perogative to change the way the Constitution is administered through this activist interpretation which is often precisely opposite that of the founders' intent.

The founders WERE a diverse group, Sal. But one thing they all agreed upon is that they were foursquare against big government which took powers never granted to it under the Constitution. They were against the federal government owning land for any reason other than a government building, and they would choke on their breakfast if they knew how the federal government justified locking the public out of its own lands.

So, what you think is that the founders' intent only makes sense when you agree with it. Why am I not surprised?
Sal
Posts: 817
Joined: Sun Mar 29, 2009 12:56 am

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Sal »

Dan keeps talking about the founders' intent like it's law or something, and like he is privy to what they (all of them) REALLY meant for our country to be. Newsflash Dan! The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Brew
Posts: 338
Joined: Sat Mar 28, 2009 10:43 am

Re: Enviromentalist vs Offroaders......

Post by Brew »

Sal wrote: The Constitution is the supreme law of the land.
Why is it then that we need so many judges and levels of courts to determine what the law says? How many rulings have been overturned by higher levels of the court system?.............LOTS!

Brew
Post Reply