Category Archives: National Forests
As a big fan of our open spaces including national forest, state parks, and so on I firmly believe that using them to grow marijuana is a bad idea. It’s not that I’m against the plant in any way – I’m very 420 friendly – I just don’t believe public lands should be used to grow it. I’m a firm supporter of the Mendocino County, California’s yellow zip-tie program from a couple of years back. It was a great idea, and it’s a shame the state of California didn’t stand behind it and allowed the federal government to swoop in and wipe out the legal and law-abiding growers crops.
Being a conservationist and being cannabis friendly and living in a state where medical marijuana is legal, I was surprised to see that the unnecessary immigration reform bill includes ANYTHING having to do with pot or federal lands. It seems to me that a bill about immigration should be about … immigration.
From the Richmond Times-Dispatch:
The Senate recently approved a measure that would add — on top of the sentence for illegally growing marijuana — up to 10 years in prison for those cultivating the drug on federal land. The measure, a little-noticed addition to the immigration overhaul bill, also calls for new penalties for environmental damage such as that caused by the use of toxic chemicals.
Dick Hagerty, an Oakdale real estate developer active in community nonprofits, has written an excellent community column in the Modesto Bee about getting outdoors and hiking the Sierras.
I truly love getting outdoors, and I encourage everyone to visit the cathedrals of nature and see what something beyond your TV screen and computer monitor. The world is a wide and wonderous place!
From the column:
It is not too late in the summer season to take a short drive up to the mountains and enjoy a day hiking through the woods and the wilderness. We just did the Panorama Trail in Yosemite this week, and despite the very strenuous ups and downs it was one of the all time greatest view treks I have ever experienced.
Peter T. Hoss has penned an editorial for the Monterey Herald about the idiotic Draft Merced River Plan. In it, he lays out issues with the plan which I wholeheartedly agree with.
From the editorial:
An ad hoc group of retired people from all aspects of Yosemite life, small in number but vast in experience, has protested the current Draft Merced River Plan and the accompanying environmental impact report, which led to my testimony before a congressional subcommittee on July 9.
This plan, which would dramatically reduce recreational use of parts of Yosemite National Park, is not a political issue. Followers of all political persuasions cherish visiting Yosemite.
The Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, applied to the Merced River, was never intended by its draftsman, now-retired Congressman Tony Coelho, to apply to the 81 miles of the river within Yosemite. That portion made the final draft because of an administrative oversight when the House and Senate versions of the legislation were combined.
From his address to the U.S. House of Representatives, August 1, 2013:
Mr. Speaker: Yosemite Valley is a national treasure that was set aside in 1864 with the promise it would be preserved for the express purpose of “Public Use, Resort and Recreation.” Ever since, Americans have enjoyed a host of recreational opportunities and amenities as they have come to celebrate the splendor of the Valley. Now, the National Parks Service, at the urging of leftist environmental groups, is proposing eliminating many of those amenities, including bicycle and raft rentals, horseback riding rentals, gift shops, snack facilities, swimming pools, and iconic facilities including the Ice Skating Rink at Curry Village, the art center and historic stone bridges that date back to the 1920’s.
For generations, these facilities have enhanced the enjoyment of the park for millions of visitors, adding a rich variety of recreational activities amidst the breathtaking backdrop of Yosemite. But today, the very nature and purpose of Yosemite is being changed from its original promise of “Public Use, Resort, and Recreation,” to an exclusionary agenda that can best be described as, “Look, but don’t touch.”