Skip to comments.Welcome to Weminuche: Sign in ( King to serfs in Colorado wilderness government lands )
Posted on 04/08/2013 9:33:14 AM PDT by george76
Mandatory registration coming to states largest wilderness area . Visitors to the Weminuche Wilderness are going to be required to register before entering the almost 500,000 acres that stretch from Silverton to Wolf Creek Pass.
Use and abuse of the pristine mountains, valleys and waterways through the years now require switching from voluntary to mandatory registration at trailheads, the San Juan National Forest said in a news release.
During the first two to three years of the new requirement, were going to educate the public on the reasons, Forest Service spokeswoman Ann Bond said Saturday. After that, rangers can issue citations.
The Weminuche Wilderness, which spans the Continental Divide, was created by Congress in 1975 and expanded to its current size by Colorado Wilderness Bills in 1980 and 1993. It is the states largest wilderness.
Wilderness designation prohibits motorized and mechanized travel (off-road vehicles or bicycles). Only foot traffic is permitted
(Excerpt) Read more at durangoherald.com ...
so presenting ID to vote is next?
The former Land of Many Uses is converting to the UN Agenda 21 requirements .
Great, looks like I might need to find another elk hunting area. Couple this with the new gun laws I might just pass through on my way to another state and not spend my $$.
The USFS and BLM just keep chipping away at keeping the public off our public lands.
Damn shame. Beautiful country. Tyrannical government.
Thanks for the ping!
Death by a thousands cuts.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife is also pushing the Gunnison sage grouse habitat designation. Their protected habitat includes an airport, crop land, and dwellings ...
Next : Ban all foot traffic
Funny. Someone in CO recently offered the excuse that most of the people in western CO are conservative. Highly doubtful. These days, even Republicans (in some states more than others) get a kick out of shocking newer residents of a year or so with their extremes in paganism, sexual confusion and socialism. Besides, nearly all of the land in western CO is owned by the government. That’s conservative, in the minds of fans of the likes of Teddy Roosevelt, Susan B. Anthony, Henry “Back Door” Beecher and Charles Fourier. It’s not conservative to me.
Why would you not register? If heaven forbid I didn’t return from a hike I would certainly want the authorities to know what trail I entered on.
OUR public lands, eh? I take it you prefer commons to private property? Let's take a look at that preference.
As concentrations of transformation products in process outputs approach zero, minute reductions in pollutants can greatly increase the cost of treatment. As the cost of compliance consumes a higher fraction of the sale price of the economic good, the return on the original use approaches zero. Once the return on assets goes negative, investment in improving technology to reduce production of negative externalities becomes negatively valued as well. Few would develop new control technology because few could pay for it. If there is no return on the use of the asset, that use of the property will be abandoned, as it has become a zero-priced good. Negative investment return destroys the market value of the use.
Both claimant and agent are thus motivated to focus upon those transformation products that are most difficult to control, because it is those properties that are most likely to convert the use of the asset to that which they prefer. The fight between landowners, regulators, and activists then degenerates into increasingly trivial arguments regarding specifications, measurements, and enforcement that have increasingly large financial consequences for the owner. Remedial measures thus structurally diverge from an objective assessment of the total impact upon environmental health because that was never the claimants' primary objective.
Rarely does either acquiring interest consider the possible unintended consequences of their actions, among other reasons because they have little experience in actual operations and no accountability for the consequences. The legal process is thus alienated from its purpose to establish justice, just as the regulatory process is directed away from ecological health. There is little civic accountability for maintaining a successful balance among competing interests, indeed, very likely the contrary is true. Problems are sources of civic claims by which to control the entire economy, a motivational structure antithetical to the very purpose of regulation.
As claims proliferate, the legislatures and courts are overwhelmed with cases that are technical and difficult to prove. They rely upon opinions from supposedly disinterested experts regarding the impacts of transformation products. Neither legislators or courts have the power to enforce a judgement; that power lies exclusively with the executive branch of government. The demand for expediency seduces legislatures and the courts to default upon their Constitutional responsibility, to the only civic agency with relevant expertise and police power. Control of use and, thus ownership of that use, is effectively transferred to the executive branch of government.
When taking land out of production profits the financial sponsors of a claim, it is cheaper to control the target use than to compensate the owner or buy the property. All it takes to manipulate a resource market by democratic means is to buy out the competition by manipulating majority perceptions about the risk of ecological harm associated with that target use. The few who can profit by taking competing resources out of production then have reason to sponsor the investment in political or legal action. They focus the first case against a weak target or obvious problem (which is why most such takings appear as local actions).
Established precedent then extends the applicability of cited legislation and lowers the cost successive claims. Property owners gradually lose their ability to finance the cost of compliance or legal resistance. Absent a profitable use, the market value of the target use approaches zero. After repeated exercise of external controls, purchase of the residual asset value concludes any remaining claim by an owner.
When a rival owner produces a competing or substitute good, the financial advantages of such tacit property acquisitions can be enormous. For example, if a developer funded public concerns about the negatively valued transformation products of farming to render the use of farmland non-economic and ripe for development, the land becomes less expensive to purchase.
This politically-sponsored dissolution of the Separation of Powers Principle, combines all three branches of government into one, that can derive power and funding by manufacturing claims on the use of property. The more externalities are regulated, the more power accrues to the agency to control the use of the producing asset to turn its use to corrupt purpose. When agency control is sufficient to alienate the interest of the agent from the democratic majority, the asset has then degenerated into a socialized commons.
The claims by which a commons is socialized are ironically often the same precedents as were used to extend the original democratic claim; i.e., by extending claims against the transformation products of the democratic use of the resource. With the legal precedents in place that were used to take control of the factors of production on individual property, the civic agent now has the legal tools to take control of ALL related private property. Control of the use of land is now in the hands of an agency that is alienated from accountability to the public claim for healthy ecosystem function. The agency instead serves the limited interests of the politically dominant, who use the power of government to gain de facto control of ALL factors of production.
History teaches that this is not a good thing.
A socialized commons is an evil to the environment because the resource is under a controlling agent with no structural motive to prevent or eliminate ecological problems. Quite the contrary, civic management of the environment not only doesn't work, it has every reason not to work. As ecological problems worsen and resulting economic crises deepen, the power acceded to government agencies expands!
Commons are factor inputs to all economic goods. The power to socialize a commons by regulation is the power to transfer control of ALL factors of production to government.
These are the consequences of socializing public lands. They should be private lands and "the public" should PAY to use them.
I register with my wife, it is none of the government’s business where I am.
Most of CO’s revenues come from the federal government (military/security, education, regulatory, surveillance of tourists, etc.). Tourism is second.
There’s an activity also known in rural CO as First Settler Syndrome. Established residents do whatever they can through local government and by other means to stop newer residents from building homes on vacant lots.
Same with the new gun control laws. First Settlers are “all grandfathered in,” as they say in CO, and can keep their standard capacity magazines, etc. They much look forward, though, to seeing tourists arrested, fined (revenues) or even jailed (prison industry big time in CO) nearly as much as hearing about their lady friends in planning offices telling new residents, “No!” [The first step in residential development, just before the big fleecing.]
Tell someone you trust. If you don't come back, they can tell "the authorities". Otherwise, they have no need to know.
Why register with the government? Is that some kind of magic safety blanket? How about let a friend know were you are headed and when to expect you. Carry an Emergency locator satellite beacon.
Registering with the “authorities” is also a “duty” to be back be a certain time, to carry a permit, to check out when you leave.
Maybe the point of going out there is to NOT interact with BLM rangers and other assorted governmental nusiances.
Remember what happened to Al Unser a few years ago in Yosemite when he got lost and stranded while snowmobiling?
Why? They are not going to help you. To the contrary, they are more likely to try to stop a rescue attempt. Under the Wilderness Act, Section 4(d)(1), they, in most cases refuse to even let a helicopter land to rescue your azz, no matter how badly injured you are. It might disturb a meadow mouse or maybe one of those endangered, sage grouse that are so prolific.
I didn't. You called them OUR public lands, thus defending the concept in principle. Best you be consistent and you won't get called on it.
And that’s exactly what they are right now.
It is always the stupid few who make it difficult for the rest of us.
Truly sad to see a freely open area trashed. I have seen it many times and it is always a matter of time before they restrict access or charge. All they need is an excuse.
I am not an enviro nut but I do respect what we have. Leave the place cleaner than when you arrived!
So, don’t enter at a trailhead; rough it in. But don’t expect the rangers to put a high priority on saving your butt if you do something stupid or are just plain unlucky!
You would want YOUR FAMILY & FRIENDS to know where you were intending to go.
You do NOT need ‘the authorities’ to know where you are every minute of every day!!!
There are times when the government really is there to help you.
If anyone wants to be on or off the Agenda 21 ping list, please notify me by Freepmail. It is a relatively low volume list in which we have been exploring the UN Agenda21 and related topics. We have collected our studies with threads, links, and discussions on the Agenda 21 thread which can be found here:
NEW ACTION THREAD:
Post 128 of the Action Thread is a summary of the history of Agenda 21, what they are doing, what to do about it and a good bibliography for further reading.