SimOpenSpace

[rlown]

so, Dave.. you're not a simulation. put forth your ideas. most of this is above treeline.

[sirlight]

Mining? You don’t need to go to that extreme to pay the taxes. Has anyone seen the size of that Crystal Geyser plant off 395? You should be able to make more than enough off spring water to cover the taxes.

[dave54]

so, Dave.. you're not a simulation. put forth your ideas. most of this is above treeline.

OK. Fair enough.

First, develop a long term management plan, identifying various uses of different parts of the land base. The plan is not written in stone. It may be revisited periodically and modified/altered to suit changing needs and desires.

Who gets to use it?

It can be open to public use, but by permit only. Activities are controlled.

Do we charge?
Charging for access is allowed. This is privately owned land, and the owners have a right to a return on investment.

build trails?
As needed, in conformity with needs/wants of the owners.

Just leave it alone and not touch anything?
No. Although some areas may left in a wilderness condition, the entire area need not/should not be. Sometimes manipulating the vegetation or terrain is needed to achieve greater goals. State and federal wildlife refuges do so on a landscape scale, as does the Nature Conservancy. Wilderness designation is not always a good idea.

Subdivide and sell lots in scenic places?
No. But the individual landowners have the right to build a home.

Let anyone do whatever they want as long as they pay an entry fee?
No.

Turn it over to the dreaded guvment 'cause we don't want to pay taxes or can't come up with a way to get enough money?
Portions may be donated to the government. Attaching deed restrictions to the donated parcel probably will not work. The government agencies are loath to accept donated land, or purchase land, with encumbrances. If they do obtain encumbered land, their first action is to go to court and get the encumbrances removed.

Can people chop down trees? Hunt? Fish? Live there??
Yes. Timber harvesting is allowed. The harvesting must be to further long term resource goals, such as improve wildlife habitat, maintain biodiversity, improve watershed, control risk of fire, insect, or disease, etc. The product removed may be sold for profit as a side benefit, but the primary purpose of the removal must be to benefit the resource. Mining is similar. The mining activities can be regulated to minimize any unnecessary or excessive resource impacts.
Wildlife and fish are regarded as state property even if the land they live on is private. State laws control hunting and fishing. Landowners can control public access to their own land, but regulation of fishing and hunting is state jurisdiction.
Existing inholders may continue their established rights of access and property rights.

Protect from forest fires?
One of the stipulations of this exercise is obey all laws. State law requires private landowners take reasonable precautions against wildfire. If they don’t the state will attack the fire anyway and send the bill to the landowner. Introducing fire into the ecosystem may be allowed as needed/desired. The notion of ‘just stop fighting fire under all conditions’ is a non-starter. It is against the law and a bad idea.

Can we introduce non-native species 'cause they're cute, taste good, are good hunting?

Follow state and federal laws, which generally says no.

[markskor]

Re: No new roads.
Bit confused as to without cutting any new roads, how do we make best use of “our wilderness,” provide for the varying needs of people – (the greatest good),
And, how will we pay for any extras provided.
I see nothing wrong with the placement of some sot of Tuolumne/VVR-type complex centered somewhere on a lake – trail friendly. Cold beer, fresh fruit…available backpacking provisions/permit station…stables (if we are to permit some pack stations), bait shop/stocking ramp…burgers…maybe a ferry across the lake much like Saddlebag. There has to be some use roads and existing structures on our newly purchased acreage. Consider opening things up, only a bit, (charging up the butt like all others do), and facilitating some our many wilderness options available.
While fervently opposed to any through road (East-West) ever bisecting our property, perhaps a well-maintained, seasonal, asphalt road, leading to a central complex – sort of like what Mineral King was to be only smaller, and without the ski slopes.
I would gladly volunteer to spend my summers there.

[oldranger]

I can't play this game, too many years in gov'ment land use planning. But when I was a kid I used to dream that I owned Yosemite. Just let my friends in. In retrospect two things come to mind. 1. Sure would cut down on the need for infrastructure. 2. Bet I'd have a lot more friends!

Mike

[Wandering Daisy]

rlown- as for "just a mine tunnel entrance" - where do you propose to put all the material displaced from all those tunnels? Have you ever dug a snow cave? If so you get the idea. If you think this kind of mining is harmless, come up here in the gold country and see some very toxic abandoned mine entrances. No mining! (PS- I made a good living as a mining geologist for 10 years in open pit coal mining in Wyoming so I am not just a casual commentor here. I am not anti-mining - just anti-mining in certain locations.)

You have to balance the conflicting goals of protection and access. I think the current system is doing OK, just is always running out of funds to do it.

Let the rich buy a mountain name. Auction off the names. How about a million $ to change Mt. Whitney to Mt. Mr. Rich! Maps are computer generated nowadays - just search and replace the names! Ha, ha - just kidding.

Access means access regardless of income. To me the only reasonable way to fund is by a general tax. This spreads the cost over many making each person's share small. If you are too stupid to realize what a treasure you are funding and do not use it , so be it.

Leave no trace eduction is vital. I honestly think you need to have a "certification" to use the back country that verifies that you really know LNT practices.

I do believe in timber and wildlife management. Yes, it is not "natural" but our development that has recstricted habitat is not natural anyway. Case in point - why have paid "federal hunters" cull the wild pigs. Here is where you can sell permits for a pig hunt and make good money. I really think hunting needs to be expanded and allowed in the National Parks - during a short season. Or how about only bow hunting? I think hunting, of the right kind, is compatible with the concept of wilderness. It is as compatible as having hordes of JMT hikers walking down highway trails.

I do not have any comprehensive plan. I do not think we are doing all that bad right now.

[rlown]

yeah, the mine was more put forth in jest. I am familiar with the issues surrounding tailings and run-off. Gotta pay for all the legal staff and geologist/biologists somehow, and if you're gonna do a general tax, you lose some control in what you do with the money.

As far as hunting, the bow concept is fine with me. I completely agree that we do not need to pay to have people hunt; in fact, it's the other way around. Even the DFG is running a SHARE program where private landowners open up their property to hunt the pigs and other over populated critters, by special permit.

[gdurkee]

When I first suggested this, I wasn't sure how it would evolve, if at all. But many of the comments here are exactly the recognition of cause and effect that is necessary to land use planning. I also figured the mine wasn't necessarily serious but, why not? Gotta pay for this stuff. But also have to recognize the trade-offs.

Same with educating people on leave no trace or anything else. I agree that's vital to using an area and most effectively maintaining a higher carrying capacity of people. But, still, who's going to do that. Do you pay them? Volunteers? etc.

Timber harvesting. Nothing necessarily wrong with that, but how is that going to affect the "feel" of the area as well as practical problems of roads to get to the trees (and quite a few here don't want roads); slash piles; machinery to get the trees; clean up after a logging operations etc.

And, why not have our own peak naming raffle or whatever? Board of Geographic Names would never go for it, but we could promise to use Coca Cola Peak in all our correspondence and maps for a small price.

A Tuolumne type store also sounds OK. But once you do something like that, you're talking sewage treatment; phone & electric (??) -- infrastructure for the site... . How much?

g.

[markskor]

"A Tuolumne type store also sounds OK. But once you do something like that, you're talking sewage treatment; phone & electric (??) -- infrastructure for the site... . How much? "...gdurkee.

My intention was to perhaps provide that needed mid-point re-supply/exit stop for the Muir - half-way between VVR and the Portal...a distance oft griped about as being too long to carry food - "not all will fit in a bear can" - commonly heard complaint.
Since our land occupies this precise territory, why not? Admittedly, it would take a road, a power line run, and have parking available, but as to sewers...not the expert here. Ask Russ - he knows his chit...(Too far?)

[rlown]

if you do the central "camp/store/trailhead" thing, all the services would have to be buried under the road easement. Just an opinion. Probably a wider easement than anyone would want, as when you need to service the infrastructure, you wouldn't want to shut down access completely.

If we add that road, I want enforcement to make sure people drive at least the speed limit or pull over. That way i don't have Mark constantly giving those in front of us the double bird salute.

I think I'd also raise the entry fee to 40 buxx per car, and put a daily access limit into the HST park (reservations included into that cut-off number).

In addition, in order to gain access to the park, you have to get a login to HST and post an intro about you and your interests before any reservation or access is granted.