SimOpenSpace | High Sierra Topix  

SimOpenSpace

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby dave54 » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:19 am

rlown wrote: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.
=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~
Log off and get outdoors!
~=~=~=~=~=~=~=~=



User avatar
dave54
Founding Member
 
Posts: 774
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 10:24 pm
Location: where the Sierras, Cascades, and Great Basin meet.
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby markskor » Mon Feb 21, 2011 9:30 am

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.
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Mammoth Lakes
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby oldranger » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:00 pm

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
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2164
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Location: Bend, Oregon
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby Wandering Daisy » Mon Feb 21, 2011 7:48 pm

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.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 2606
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby rlown » Tue Feb 22, 2011 2:29 pm

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.
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5328
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby gdurkee » Wed Feb 23, 2011 9:33 am

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.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby markskor » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:25 am

"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?)
Mountainman who swims with trout
User avatar
markskor
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
Founding Member & Forums Administrator
 
Posts: 2047
Joined: Fri Oct 28, 2005 5:41 pm
Location: Mammoth Lakes
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby rlown » Wed Feb 23, 2011 11:30 am

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. :p
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5328
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby sparky » Wed Feb 23, 2011 5:36 pm

I would run things much as the NPS does now, only instead of tax money, it is funded by farming on the fresno side.
There is a million ways to be human, all are worthwhile.

True happiness is the absence of striving for happiness.
-Chuang Tzu.
User avatar
sparky
Topix Expert
 
Posts: 880
Joined: Tue Jul 20, 2010 10:01 am
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby gdurkee » Wed Feb 23, 2011 8:21 pm

HST Park -- that's it!
g.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
 
Posts: 658
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby Bad Man From Bodie » Thu Feb 24, 2011 10:48 am

Ok, guess Ill bite.

The old slogan of the USFS land is “land of many uses”. Not sure if this holds true today, but that was the goal. I was taught in school that the idea behind land management in this country is to conduct management in an effort to conserve our land and its resources for the benefit, enjoyment, and future of the citizens of the United States. The opinions to how we should conduct land management are widespread as indicted in this thread. Commonality between opinions are based around the enjoyment part and not the benefit part from our natural resources. Most rational folks can all agree we need to extract materials from the earth so we can provide infrastructure and a decent comfort in living (ie we drive cars and not ride horses). We can all agree that we need agriculture to grow food and make clothing. We can all agree we need open space and wild places. We can’t all agree on how to balance this endeavor given the human condition. Wandering Daisy and I both agree we are not doing all that bad right now.
But times are changing as generation after generation are removed from the fact that veggies come from the earth and not the grocery store, and the metal in your car comes from a mine and not a car lot. The balance observed for many years in land management has shifted to a more emotional stance verses practical and the value of the natural resource is now measured in what personal enjoyment or fulfillment one gets from their “wilderness” experience. With so many emotions out there it has to be impossible for land managers on the federal level to please everyone or accomplish a task. We have to account for the emotions the general public has when it comes to conservation issues because it is written in our constitution (ie, we all have the right to pursuit of happiness).

It appears to me we are just protecting our own individual rights to pursuit of happiness. Well, no one will be happy if they have no food to eat or roof over their head. For me the question regarding open space verses development should be decided by necessity. I think you can have both. We have a lot of mining in Nevada and more open space than any other state except Alaska, mainly because no one wants to live in Nevada. For a lot of people, Nevada is ugly, dry, and undesirable to live in, which makes it a perfect place for mining and open space. So I chose to live in Nevada because of these reasons. I can make a good living as an enviromental hydrogeologist working in the mining industry and I don’t have to deal with a lot of folks and opinions from California (yet). Its all a matter of preference and opinion and not always what is good for the earth (and yes that includes us humans – we are part of this earth cycle thing).

In respect to who should manage our open space and land use… other than HST..…well here is a concept that may be a bit foreign…..Mother nature should manage the land and not a bureaucracy. Before Europeans showed up on the east coast, there were Native Americans (Indians). The Indians had no concept of land ownership but they sure in the heck had a good knowledge of land management, because back then, humans were part of mother nature. It was when the US government got involved and decided that they owned the land and therefore were in-charge of management of the land and its resources. They started with whipping out the buffalo and are wrapping up the last 10 years by allowing industry to operate without measures that could have prevented the billions of gallons of crude to be discharged into the Gulf,. Threfore, I am not a fan of the government managing out natural resources, rather, I trust private enterpise and land owners. Afterall, the National Parrks were origionaly privately funded.
User avatar
Bad Man From Bodie
Topix Regular
 
Posts: 357
Joined: Thu Sep 18, 2008 10:46 am
Location: Lee Vining/Reno
Experience: N/A

User avatar

Re: SimOpenSpace

Postby rlown » Thu Feb 24, 2011 3:17 pm

so, with the stipulation that we have 1 mile from the edges for wilderness, the mine entrance could be put in that region, depending on where the gold is. It appears we could dump the tailings around Yucca Mtn, if the mine was on the east side. :p

I completely agree with Bad Man, about necessity, but in the region suggested, there's not a lot other than granite, unless you know where to look and dig.

I'd agree with "let nature do it's thing", if we could agree upon the non-native species like trout. With no native trout, I guess i wouldn't visit much.

Not sure there's a lot of timber in the region that is harvest-able. There's always helo harvesting..
User avatar
rlown
Topix Junkie
 
Posts: 5328
Joined: Thu Oct 25, 2007 5:00 pm
Location: Petaluma and Wilton, CA
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Previous

Return to The Campfire



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests