High Sierra Topix

Well said George! I've been contemplating a response myself but you've always been more articulate than me. I thought this UN stuff was unique to the NW. What a sheltered life I've lived.

Grant County to the east of me passed an ordinance that made it illegal for the UN to enter the county. It has been very effective so far.

Mike

Strider:

Paso meritage?!? That sounds great. We haven't seriously tried the central coast stuff in some years. But all the reviews (and the movie!) have been good. Next expedition we'll see if we can find that one. California has some darned excellent meritages (is that a plural?), but we've only had the ones out of Sonoma and a few from Napa. Mazzacco and Chateau St. Jean are always darned good (though the St. Jean is a bit overpriced for a poor but honest ranger).

Will definitely look for it... .


Mountaineer:

Not that it'll do any good, but where to start? First, when the UN says "belongs to all the people," they mean in an emotional sense. I don't know where that Yellowstone thing comes from. There was absolutely no direction or order or whatever you're implying from the UN. The Greater Yellowstone Ecosystem Project (which is what I assume you're referring to) was an effort by biologists to recognize just that -- Yellowstone-the-park is part of a larger ecosystem, not an isolated island with a fence around it. The idea is to try to manage the entire area as one ecological unit. And, even then, it's just an advisory organization. It has no authority to actually tell anyone what to do.

I watched and read about that project from the beginning. There was no UN direction. I know some of the biologists involved. Arguably, it's the US conservation/preservation movement that influences the UN. I know two of the biologists at the UN. They spend all their time helping developing countries with their problems. I emphasize helping. They only come when invited and only give advice. Most of the countries seek this help out because they recognize the benefits from eco-tourism.

A function of free speech under our system of government is to invite dispute. It may indeed best serve its high purpose when it induces a condition of unrest, creates dissatisfaction with conditions as they are, or even stirs people to anger. Speech is often provocative and challenging.
Justice Robert Jackson, Terminiello v. Chicago

That said (or quoted), I think the "cleaning restrooms" swipe was a little overdone. Granted we get kind of excited around here and enthusiastic argument is a good -- and even fun -- thing. For the record, I've been a backcountry ranger (law enforcement) for 37 years. I've worked in both Yosemite and Sequoia Kings Parks (where I am now). I edit and publish Sierra Nature Notes, so I keep up with research articles in the Sierra and throughout the park system. I write environmental assessments, so I keep up with the regulations that guide NPS policy and decision making. Not to overdo my modest resume here, but I'm also President of our Ranger Lodge of the Fraternal Order of Police. I meet with and talk to managers at the Washington level as well as Congressional staffers with NPS oversight a fair amount of the time. After all this time, I'd pick up on any UN influence or direction at any level of NPS management. So when you say "you say that with such certainty," you're right. I'm certain.

Absent real evidence to the contrary (a smoking gun type memo; a UN worker testifying that they were sent to control or give orders to a park or other heritage site (not just advice) I can say with certainty that there is no UN employee, representative etc. who in any way tells the National Park Service how to control or manage its land. There is no manager or administrator in the National Park Service who, in any way, takes orders from anyone in the UN.

Jump in?? I mean, that's kind of the idea of a forum... . I am, sigh, all-knowing. But I've been at this a very long time and there's probably a fine line (which maybe I cross) between all-knowing and condescending. I like to think not, but there you go... .

Whew! Well, I'm gonna go find a glass of Strider's Paso Robles Meritage and drink to provocative and challenging free speech.


George Durkee

George, when compared to your "whacko drunk" comments, the cleaning the restrooms comment was hardly overdone.

I just flat out don't trust the UN with anything and the last thing I want to see is their blue sign plastered all over within an hour of my house. We don't need their help with anything, especially environmental issues. They use their influence on our decision making process, whether their employees will testify to it or not...there are enough of us out here that are leery enough of the UN to just not summarily dismiss us as kooks.

I can hardly wait for King George's response. I'm sure that he can see more than all of us from his lofty perch!

mountaineer wrote:George, when compared to your "whacko drunk" comments, the cleaning the restrooms comment was hardly overdone.

Actually, no. Your 'cleaning the restrooms' comment had no basis other than your resentment at having been shown to be completely wrong. It was petty, mean-spirited, and really kind of self-defeating--because quite a few of us who backpack in the Sierra have heard of (and respect) George Durkee, and know how completely off-base your attempted put-down was.

George's 'whacko' comment was actually pretty reasonable, because your whole argument has been based on ignorance, misinformation, and a resolute refusal to accept information that contradicts your preconceptions.

George is arguing from direct and extensive experience. All you have to fall back on is your own worldview. That's fine, if you want to look foolish...but you'd be well-advised not to compound the foolishness by insulting people who know more than you do.

Think it's time I interject with a warning. Things aren't completely out of hand, I know. But I would like to ask that we keep our cool, guys and gals. Personal attacks (this includes subtle and not-so-subtle defamatory remarks) are not necessary in order to voice your opinions. I would prefer to keep this thread open, but will lock it down if that type of stuff continues.

Thank you.

So Tom, he can't just inform me with facts? Instead, he uses words like "wacko" and insinuates too much beer drinking...and that's okay?

What is wrong with pointing out my world view? It sounds like it was George who was offended that I don't like the UN...otherwise, he would have just laid out the facts without the insults. While everything George says may be the gospel truth, the manner in which he presented it..."the UN can do no wrong and you are a drunk wacko for even questioning it"...was totally uncalled for. Then, when I sling a little mud back his way, suddenly it is wrong for me to do so.

I did notice that he has friends and colleagues involved in UNESCO so he isn't exactly objective now, is he?

Sorry Eric, I just don't take being called a wacko drunk sitting down.

From the UNESCO site explaining the World Heritage Treaty:

The World Heritage Convention is a unique international treaty by which countries recognise that the sites located on their national territory, and which have been inscribed on the World Heritage List, without prejudice to national sovereignty or ownership constitute a world heritage "for whose protection it is the duty of the international community as a whole to co-operate".

George, you can say all you want about the UN not wanting to influence what we do with our land....I am sorry, I don't trust that organization. It was founded by socialist/communist officals who are for more globalization and less sovereignty. I don't want them involved in our country, even if it is a token presence as you assert.

In 1995, the Clinton Administration bowed down to a German official and a bunch of radical environmentalists over concern that a mine that had already been deemed safe was supposedly going to threaten Yellowstone. The UN listed Yellowstone as a World heritage Site in danger and Clinton used the designation in part, to force the mining company off the land. The mine was then closed with no consideration given to the opinions of local residents.

By the way, there are apparently lots of people who share my "world view".

mountaineer wrote:By the way, there are apparently lots of people who share my "world view".

Including the rednecks in Idaho who shot the US Biologists just trying to do their jobs.

Strider wrote:

mountaineer wrote:By the way, there are apparently lots of people who share my "world view".

Including the rednecks in Idaho who shot the US Biologists just trying to do their jobs.

And three of the five SLO county supervisors and Taft city council and various other groups.

The whole pro-UN attitude shown here should also be a red flag. Any time I criticize something and am immediately lambasted for criticizing them...even likened to murderers, it reaffirms my belief that the group being criticized is up to no good.

Nice touch there Strider...I don't like the UN so I am a murderer? Brilliant.