Eccentric
Mister Wizard
Where the hell did that come from? Nobody here in this discussion has advocated a "let's cut all the redwoods down" stance....
Last edited:
Yeah, your right...let's just cut all the redwoods down so that all the filthy rich people in Portola Valley can have their redwood decking.
Yeah, that makes more sense...:bang:
You make some good points and in a perfect world maybe some of your ideas might possibly work. I wish I had time to wait for that perfect world to appear. Those of us who work in the woods and don't just use them to play in usually have a pretty full plate.
You can talk about a "liability shift" all you want but the truth is something different...and a lot less pleasant. Every recreational group, hunters, 4 wheelers, woodcutters, or whatever has been more than willing to sign waivers or hold-harmless agreements or anything else we asked them to sign to gain access to our ground. Our lawyer laughs when he reads them. He calls them well intended but worthless in a court of law...especially in front of a jury. Regardless of what they sign there will still be lawsuits when someone is hurt or killed on our property. If nothing else, their insurance company will sue us. We've been through this before and we're not going to go through it again. The last time we dealt with a lawsuit it cost a chunk of money to defend ourselves even though the suit was frivolous and the person suing us was trespassing.
Our insurance company gets very nervous when we bring up the idea of alternate uses for our ground. What little money we'd derive from leases would barely offset the increase in premiums.
All that being said, the main reason we don't open up our land is a very simple one. We don't want to be bothered. We have neither the time nor the resources to keep track of every city person with a Jeremiah Johnson complex, or all the four wheelers who wouldn't really care if they rutted our ground and negated our efforts at erosion control, or the legions of firewood cutters who are well meaning but frightening in their lack of knowledge and technique.
I don't know what you do for a living but, whatever it is, I doubt if I know very much about it and certainly wouldn't be able to perform the job functions at the same level you do. With that thought in mind I probably wouldn't run my mouth and tell you how to run your job. That would be a little foolish.
And you're right about my home being in Grass Valley. We have a little ground in that area. We have more on the coast, though. :msp_wink:
Edit to add...I'm writing this in Tucumcari, New Mexico. We don't have any ground here. Thank goodness.
Nobody is advocating cutting down all the Redwoods. Broc Luno and I don't agree on a lot of things but neither one of us want to see all the old growth gone.
Broc Luno has the experience to present a logical argument from his point of view. So do I.
He and I are having a civil discussion and airing different points of view. You need to take a deep breath, go back and read both of our posts, and if you can't add anything useful you need to rethink your facts and S T F U.
Subscribed to the "Gologit is my Hero" fanclub.
I've been a member of that club for years Jonathan. Bruce (BrocLuno) brings some good insight too. Bruce can correct me if I'm wrong here (as this is my interpretation of his posts and I'm NOT speaking for him)...................but it looks to me like Bob and Bruce are having 'parallel arguements' in this discussion. From what I read from Bruce's posts, he's talking more about changing the management of existing 'protected' forest lands..........and possibly involving private lands owned by those that'd like to participate in the recreation uses. I don't believe Bruce is talking about forcing folks (like Bob) who own private lands to participate in the management strategy that he's proposing. I'd certainly like to see some existing public lands managed in this fashion. The wilderness/roadless thing has gone WAY out of hand. Seen that in several areas of Ca already.
I believe Bob (again, this is how I'm reading his posts............I'm NOT speaking for him) is speaking from the perspective of property owner's rights, and the view that property owners ARE managing their lands responsibly and effectively.......and more than likely MORE effectively than what could/would be done by the public sector (because of the red tape, and the influence that an ignorant/emotional public has on the decissions of the public sector). I agree with Bob. Only those landowners that are agreeable to participate in something like what Bruce is proposing (and Bob's obviously NOT in this group) should do so.
I respect both of these men and their opinions/wisdom. I do NOT respect the knee-jerk emotional/irrational crap that gets injected into an intelligent, civilized adult discussion such as this. These discussions are RARE, and should not be poisoned by the 'left field' crapola......:bang:
Aaron,
Yep. Bruce, and Bob sure are level headed when it comes to social discourse. I suppose it only fair that I admit my membership in the BrocLuno fanclub as well.
Now on the topic of contrarians for the sake of controversy I most sincerely suggest TraditionalTool add the word "Bag" at the end of his username, all in favor say "Aye".
You know my answer Jonathan..........but I refrain from publicly voting in order to try to preserve Norm's Redwoods thread and the civil discussions within....
Enter your email address to join: