Thursday, September 18, 2008


....As Long As Only We Get To Use Them....

Yellowstone National Park is a huge place. Its footprint comprises a very large bite out or the northwest corner of Wyoming, along with appreciable bits of Montana and Idaho. It's a beautiful place, and one which very few people would not like to visit and spend some time.

It's even more beautiful in winter, in my opinion, but kind of hard to travel around in during that time of the year. Oh, I suppose they keep the paved roads open most of the time. Some people like to wander away from the paved roads.

Today, the Los Angeles Times, socialist-oriented little brother to the New York Times, has an editorial about this. Seems US Judge Emmet G Sullivan has unilaterally banned all snowmobile use within the borders of the park.

Both the Bush Administration and, more importantly, the state of Wyoming want access for up to 700 snowmobiles at a time within the park. I have no idea why the limit, but Judge Sullivan, who probably lives in Washington DC, has in his infinite wisdom, decided the number should be zero. For, you guessed it, environmental reasons.

A snowmobile leaves no footprint that won't disappear with the next snow, or with the spring thaw. Snowmobiles emit exhaust gasses, but then so do you. And so does your car as you zip along the highway. So do the bears, wolves, elk, squirrels and any other critters you can name that live there. For that matter, so do the trees and grasses, etc.

We could discuss the noise they make, but that too, is one more annoyance of many.

The overwhelming factor is that every one of us pays for the maintenance of that park. The park exists for the enjoyment of everyone. The park doesn't exist merely for the enjoyment of one Judge Sullivan--nor to satisfy the twisted sensibilities of a few pointy-headed algorians.

The solution, of course, is for the land to be sold in reasonable parcels to interested members of the public. It's well known that private owners take far better care of their own property than do government bureaucrats and the drones they employ to keep unapproved Americans off what is now their jointly-held land. It's also well known that the managers of the parks are not doing a job taking care of them. Too often, there are fires that are made far worse because heavy underbrush is allowed to remain to become fuel for wildfires. Private owners would not let that happen.

We need to get these lands out of the untrustworthy hands of an uncaring, incapable government, and out of the sway of corrupt officials like Judge Sullivan.

They've killed Freedom! Those bastards!

Warm regards,

Col. Hogan
Stalag California


12 comments:

Kent C said...

So true. "The New Intellectual" Sept. issue has a few really good articles - one a review, by Chris Horner ("Politically Incorrect Guide to Global Warming" - a must read, imo), of two recent anti-environmental books and an interview with Horner.

One of the books:"The Really Inconvenient Truths: Seven Environmental Catastrophes Liberals Don't Want You to Know About--Because They Helped Cause Them"

... lists the undergrowth fires on gov't lands as one of the catastrophes. "Publicly owned lands are the worst-maintained in the country, compounded because... Uncle Sam, hoards the most land out of fear of what might happen to it in private hands (for one thing, it wouldn't burn down every few years)."

Then there's the Rachel Carson driven UN's elimination of DDT... and millions of people in Africa who now die of malaria, a disease that was virtually wiped out by the use of DDT. This actually gives evidence to Horner claim, rightly so, imo, that the core of the environmental wackos is the old 'zero population' group, who despite that their messiah, Erlich, had been wrong on almost every concept in his Zero Pop. book, is still held in high esteem.
He once said:
"I have yet to meet anyone familiar with the situation who thinks that India will be self-sufficient in food by 1971." What a 'shwog'. ;-)

See, they've been using that 'consensus argument' (no one disagrees with me!) for a while now. You'd think just that would throw up a red flag, but the liberals fall for it every time, always couched in (junk) science to make it sound legit.

T. F. Stern said...

While I agree with most of what you said, private ownership of the land would not solve the problem since the federal government would still put their fingers the pie and tell the land owners what they could or could not do with their land. This is a bad situation which needs to be repaired.

Kent C said...

t.f.
"private ownership of the land would not solve the problem"

True private ownership would, but you're right. It's the difference between communism and fascism (a thin line, I might add). In communism the state owns it. In fascism (certain types), you own it, but the state controls it.

The only thing is:

control = ownership. ;-)

Col. Hogan said...

Kent,

You're giving me a pretty big list of books, these past few days--and in the past. I've read about the DDT thing. It's a perfect example of the "Big Lie." Tell a lie often enough, over a long enough time, and it becomes the truth.

I've talked to many very intelligent prople who say things like, "I know DDT is really a good insect killer, and I know it would prevent malaria throughout the world, but I'm going to use something else at my house, just to be safe."

Col. Hogan said...

TF,

In this case, we have to define the term "private ownership." Ownership means, as Kent writes, complete control of use and disposal.

That is, if government has any control over your use and disposal of "your" property, then it's not yours.

Kent C said...

Col.,

Re:DDT. I forget and won't bother looking it up right now, but there was a guy that did DDT demonstrations where he'd drink a glass of it straight. Seems like a guy who'd be a cross betweeen Julian Simon and Penn Jenrette :-)

Carson's 'Silent Spring' claimed that DDT was 'held in bird bodies' and eventually killed them or caused defects in their young... so?? - it's been a while since I've read it. Many people have disproved it but the lie lives on while people don't. At least one African country, seems like S.Africa, went against the UN sanction and the malaria instances and deaths stats reversed almost immediately. Cato did a policy analysis on it. hold..... here:

http://www.cato.org/pubs/pas/pa-513es.html

One of the 'problems' with DDT is that it is like a white wash and the most effective method of use is to put it on the walls. Not very aesthetic but that was also one of the 'cases' made against it and why some failed to use it. I'd have to go with that 'white stucco' look if I lived there ;-)

I actually have some DDT (we'll see how good the feds are at tracking ;-) Best thing for ants.

Kent C said...

OT: a new 'cartoon'

http://www.pbase.com/kentc/image/103368789

... from Biden's comments that paying more taxes is 'patriotic'

T. F. Stern said...

The splitting of hairs is needed when we wish to claim private ownership of property. It is my belief that private ownership here in the USA vanished into the mist, a fond memory of a dream that once was.

Col. Hogan said...

Kent,

Great image! The mouth doesn't loov very realistic, but there's no miastaking that hair!

Col. Hogan said...

TF,

That's true, and things stand, but all the more reason for Americans to retake control of the government and put an end to these insane regulations they've forced on us over the decades.

Probably the first step is to let them know that these awful candidates they're nominating just aren't good enough.

I won't accept the idea that real private ownership is no longer possible.

Kent C said...

Col.,

The mouth was from another one of his shots and was meant to be exaggerated. The other one didn't fit the context ;-) Hope it still communicates. There's always been that 'one has a "duty" to pay taxes' but they never go past the slogan. The hidden intent is that we'll jail you if you don't. The suggestion is that 'duty = responsibilty' and conceptually, they're miles apart.

And to t.f.:
Splitting hairs is how we communicate what we've lost. Obscuring those ideas is how they grabbed them initially. "Private" became "public". Then "public good" could be applied where it hadn't been before.

Col. Hogan said...

Kent,

.....And we all know what duty is, right?