|
|
|
|
owens
Apr 10, 2006, 2:29 PM
Post #26 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 4, 2005
Posts: 3
|
I am familiar with the topography of the section south of the interstate.
I am also familiar with commonly practiced building techniques.
In my opinion, it is disingenuous to claim that this deal needs federal money to buy 640 acres of land or climbing access will be lost, and the wildlife habitat and open space beauty of this area will be destroyed.
The specific section which would be bought with federal dollars doesn't even include what most people think of when they climb at Bozeman Pass.
It does appear to include the climbing at Frog Rock, and the surrounding 640 acres. Most all of this terrain is steep and heavily forested, and not at all conducive to being used as a major subdivision. In its most likely developed state, this land would be home to a handful of multi-acre, forested, million+ dollar homesites.
The wildlife already tolerate and move through areas quite similar to this in the adjacent developed lands in Bear Canyon.
Is this a perfect solution? No. But if you want federal funds to add to national forest holdings, just say so. Don't imply that climbers are going to be out of a place to climb, or that all habitat will be destroyed. That is not true.
owens
|
|
|
|
|
tkalakay
Apr 10, 2006, 6:29 PM
Post #27 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2006
Posts: 3
|
000
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 10, 2006, 8:01 PM
Post #28 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: I suggest you funnel your knowledge and energy in a more positive direction.
I would love to know why you people think that having the government control land guarantees access. It doesn’t. Climbing has been banned on quite a few sites of public land and environmentalist kooks are working on banning it on plenty more. If you really want the land and access to it, you guys out in Montana should pony up your own money and buy it yourself. Then you could set up an endowment to fund care taking of the land. Sticking it to taxpayers is disgusting. On another note, the place looks like a chosspile to me.
|
|
|
|
|
mr8615
Apr 10, 2006, 8:42 PM
Post #29 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 4, 2004
Posts: 1032
|
I disagree with the overdramatization that this issue seems to be recieving, and agree w/ owens' points (habitat distruction is not guaranteed, especially on that tract of land, loss of access is also not guaranteed). Just because the most convenient access (parking right on the highway) is eliminated, does that mean that access will be denyed all together? Are there any alternatives, hiking from somewhere else perhaps? I also feel like the solution does not always lay with having the government purchase the land. I disagree with the attitude that if the land is public, access is secure, that is not true in many cases. There are alternative means of conservation.
edit: If this really is the best solution to this particular problem, I'll be writing my letters very soon, but I'll be doing my own research.
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Apr 10, 2006, 10:49 PM
Post #30 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
In reply to: I would love to know why you people think that having the government control land guarantees access. It doesn’t. Climbing has been banned on quite a few sites of public land and environmentalist kooks are working on banning it on plenty more. If you really want the land and access to it, you guys out in Montana should pony up your own money and buy it yourself. Then you could set up an endowment to fund care taking of the land. Sticking it to taxpayers is disgusting. On another note, the place looks like a chosspile to me.
As has already been stated, the Gallatin NF is onboard with this plan. I'd be interested to hear examples of "environmentalist kooks" closing national forest lands to climbing in this region. In the past few years at least two federally managed climbing areas less than an hour from Bozeman, the Allenspur and Beehive Basin, have had access significantly impacted or completely eliminated because of the actions of private landowners. Thankfully the situation at the Allenspur has changed due in a big part to the efforts of the Southwest Montana Climbers’ Coalition.
On another note, the reason why few climbers of Kalakay’s character or caliber contribute to this site is because people shoot their mouths off about issues and places that they admittedly know nothing about. Valid criticism is helpful, being an ass is not.
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 11, 2006, 10:26 AM
Post #31 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: On another note, the reason why few climbers of Kalakay’s character or caliber contribute to this site is because people shoot their mouths off about issues and places that they admittedly know nothing about. Valid criticism is helpful, being an ass is not. Bryan
Now you have me curious. Can you please tell me more about what kind of caliber climber Bryan is? How hard to I have to crank to be a high caliber climber? Does Bryan being a high caliber climber make his opinions correct?
Your holier than thou and condescending attitude is amusing, but it does not make you correct.
This whole things reeks of government pork. I think that unsuspecting climbers are being used by environmentalist organizations and other special interest groups to help them do their bidding. I noticed you people started to have a fit when someone mentioned pork. The truth irritates people who don’t want to hear it. I did a Google search on a couple of the entities mentioned on this post, and it looks like there is a lot of land acquisition going on in Montana for vague reasons (protection, maintainance of rural values?, protecting family farmland?). I do not see climbing mentioned as a reason for any of them. I cannot for the life of me figure out exactly what is being protected here.
Lest you climbers think these people are your friends, environmentalists are not so hot on people drilling bolts into rock and 'destroying' natural habitats.
I see the Doris Duke Foundation, which is out of NY, kicked down a couple mil for one of these land acquisitions. Why is an out of state organization so concerned with what is going on in Montana?
I have some questions for those leading this charge to acquire this land with taxpayer money:
1. Is there is a clause in this proposal that states climbing will not be banned on the land and people will be allowed to bolt?
2. Who are the top 10 contributors to the Gallatin Valley Land Trust and the American Farmland Trust?
3. What percent of your funding and what dollar amount came from each?
4. What is compensation for the head of each organization?
5. Can you provide a link to the full text of the proposal so we can search through it?
|
|
|
|
|
atpeaceinbozeman
Apr 11, 2006, 4:54 PM
Post #32 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Posts: 478
|
To answer your questions Joseph, would be casting pearls before swine.
People don't care what you think, ask, or say when you do it in that manner.
It's very unfortunate that people like you shoot their mouths off and discourage actual discussion.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
wyoclimber3
Apr 11, 2006, 6:08 PM
Post #33 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 74
|
joseph - no need to get pissed off because you live in oakland. this issue seems pretty straightforward to me. government purchasing 2000 acres of land to keep as open space? sounds good. protecting a potentially important wildlife corridor? even better. preserving and improving public access to climbing? i'm in. personally, i would rather see $2.5 million of taxpayers money go towards this project, than say, 5 minutes of a war in iraq. i live in tahoe. i would bet that you spend or have spent some time climbing here. would you support an initiative to buy donner summit if it was in private hands and access was potentially threatened? and if the government was obviously in favor of maintaining rock climbing there, as seems to be the case at bozeman pass? i don't really think they would construct any new parking areas if they weren't pro-climbing. in fact, the tahoe truckee land trust just bought a large chunk of billy mack canyon, an area just below the black wall, to maintain as open space. i would much rather have these lands in the hands of such an organization, or the government, than in the hands of a potential developer. i used to live in montana, and i've climbed at bozeman pass. its not the most pristine limestone in the world. that said, it is still a worthwhile climbing area. i love california, but i miss the wide open spaces that places like montana still have in abundance. if a project like this keeps land from being developed (and with its proximity to bozeman, i would consider it inevitable), and still allows access to climbers, i am all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
wyoclimber3
Apr 11, 2006, 6:11 PM
Post #34 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 74
|
joseph - no need to get pissed off because you live in oakland. this issue seems pretty straightforward to me. government purchasing 2000 acres of land to keep as open space? sounds good. protecting a potentially important wildlife corridor? even better. preserving and improving public access to climbing? i'm in. personally, i would rather see $2.5 million of taxpayers money go towards this project, than say, 5 minutes of a war in iraq. i live in tahoe. i would bet that you spend or have spent some time climbing here. would you support an initiative to buy donner summit if it was in private hands and access was potentially threatened? and if the government was obviously in favor of maintaining rock climbing there, as seems to be the case at bozeman pass? i don't really think they would construct any new parking areas if they weren't pro-climbing. in fact, the tahoe truckee land trust just bought a large chunk of billy mack canyon, an area just below the black wall, to maintain as open space. i would much rather have these lands in the hands of such an organization, or the government, than in the hands of a potential developer. i used to live in montana, and i've climbed at bozeman pass. its not the most pristine limestone in the world. that said, it is still a worthwhile climbing area. i love california, but i miss the wide open spaces that places like montana still have in abundance. if a project like this keeps land from being developed (and with its proximity to bozeman, i would consider it inevitable), and still allows access to climbers, i am all for it.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 11, 2006, 10:43 PM
Post #35 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: would you support an initiative to buy donner summit if it was in private hands and access was potentially threatened?
No, I would not support an initiative for the govt to buy Donner Summit if it was in private hands and access was threatened. I have principles. I don’t support using taxpayer money to buy land. My taxes are plenty high as it is. The Donner area is one of my favorite places to climb, but I just don’t support using my hard earned money for people to buy any crag they want. If access was threatened and someone wanted to start a private pool to buy the crag, I would kick down for that.
Do you really believe there is no open space in California? That is just absurd.
My questions are valid, and your refusal to answer them casts doubt on your intentions. PROVIDE US A LINK TO THE FULL ELECTRONIC TEXT OF THE PROPOSED BILL, I want to search through it. I think it is important for people to know what you are asking them to endorse. If you cannot do that, I recommend that people cast a more critical eye on the motivation for this.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 12, 2006, 6:59 AM
Post #36 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
Millions of dollars in a private pool is nothing, what do you think a mutual fund is? Further, one person owned the land before.
I dont know if it is extreme or not, but I think it is important to see what is in the bill so people can judge if it is extreme. Many bills carry all sorts of riders.
How could you support something when you really dont know what it is you are supporting?
|
|
|
|
|
atpeaceinbozeman
Apr 12, 2006, 2:52 PM
Post #37 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Posts: 478
|
In reply to: I dont know if it is extreme or not, but I think it is important to see what is in the bill so people can judge if it is extreme. Many bills carry all sorts of riders. How could you support something when you really dont know what it is you are supporting?
I agree, you don't.
Once again, the federal funding comes from the Land and Water Conservation Fund. They have a budget of ~900 million a year for these types of projects, and Americans have been supporting this since 1964. Here is a list from the link above of projects they have been involved with:
Everglades National Park (Florida)
Acadia National Park (Maine)
Grand Canyon National Park (Arizona)
Columbia River Gorge National Scenic Area (Oregon and Washington)
Cape Cod National Seashore (Massachusetts)
Blackwater National Wildlife Refuge (Maryland)
Sterling Forest (New York and New Jersey)
The Appalachian Trail (Maine to Georgia)
Martin Luther King, Jr. National Historic Site (Georgia)
Gettysburg National Military Park (Pennsylvania)
Voyageurs National Park (Minnesota)
C & O Canal (District of Columbia, Maryland, and West Virginia)
Saguaro National Park (Arizona)
Rocky Mountain National Park (Colorado)
King Range National Conservation Area (California)
Great Smoky Mountains National Park (Tennessee and North Carolina)
Continental Divide National Scenic Trail (Montana to New Mexico)
North Platte River (Wyoming)
Denali National Park (Alaska)
Osceola National Forest (Florida)
Haleakala National Park (Hawaii)
Walnut Creek National Wilderness Area (Iowa)
Jean Lafitte National Historical Park and Preserve (Louisiana)
Jefferson National Expansion Memorial (Missouri)
Petroglyph National Monument (New Mexico)
Lake Tahoe (Nevada and California)
Cuyahoga Valley National Recreation Area (Ohio)
San Antonio Missions National Historical Park (Texas)
Gulf Islands National Seashore (Mississippi and Florida)
Flaming Gorge National Recreation Area (Utah)
Assateague Island National Seashore (Maryland and Virginia)
Green Mountain National Forest (Vermont)
Nez Perce National Historical Park (Washington, Idaho, and Oregon)
Ice Age National Scenic Trail (Wisconsin)
Gallatin National Forest (Montana)
You can even navigate to your state/county to see the history of projects in your area, starting all the way back in 1964.
Here is an another article that explains the Bozeman Pass issue in a bit more detail.
I'd like to know what is wrong with this project.
How is this different than other conservation projects supported by the Land and Water Conservation fund?
The pearls have been cast.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
wyoclimber3
Apr 12, 2006, 3:17 PM
Post #38 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 4, 2002
Posts: 74
|
In reply to: Do you really believe there is no open space in California? That is just absurd.
I never said that California has no open space. However, I did say that Montana has an adundance of open space that California cannot equal. Personally, i would rather not see every parcel of open space in the hands of developers, private land owners, and commercial interests. If we can avoid the californication of Montana in this way, i'm all for it.
In reply to: The Donner area is one of my favorite places to climb, but I just don’t support using my hard earned money for people to buy any crag they want.
Was this ever about the government solely buying land for climbers? Have you read anything in this entire post? This is about the government buying undeveloped land to maintain as open space. Climbing access happens to be a secondary benefit of the process. I would support the government buying this land with MY tax money even if it had NOTHING to do with climbing.
In reply to: PROVIDE US A LINK TO THE FULL ELECTRONIC TEXT OF THE PROPOSED BILL, I want to search through it.
If you are so concerned with reading the full text of this bill, why don't you find it? Better yet, why don't you find it and then post a link to it? When you have actually done this, maybe you will have a basis for your criticism.
By the way, i sent a letter of support to Senator Burns yesterday.
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 17, 2006, 10:35 PM
Post #39 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
I am still waiting on a link to the full electronic text of the bill.
|
|
|
|
|
spudster11
Apr 19, 2006, 12:18 AM
Post #40 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 22, 2004
Posts: 11
|
Give it a rest jackass!
|
|
|
|
|
josephgdawson
Apr 19, 2006, 5:14 PM
Post #41 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 20, 2004
Posts: 303
|
In reply to: Give it a rest jackass!
Kudos to you for your support of open debate and transparency in public policy.
Let's see the bill folks.
|
|
|
|
|
wanlessrm
Apr 19, 2006, 7:20 PM
Post #42 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2002
Posts: 333
|
I think the Tommy Boy saying goes, "You can get a good look at a tee bone by sticking your head up a bulls ass or you can take the Butchers word for it". What Josephgdawson is saying is that he didn't believe the Butcher and got his head stuck in a bulls ass.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasgarrison
Apr 23, 2006, 3:46 AM
Post #43 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 23, 2006
Posts: 1
|
guys,
I think I know this guy atpeaceinbozeman, his real name is Don.
See the problem is, Don isn't known for his factual posts...
And if you frequent this site, you will remember "atpeaceinbozeman" is a funny person who posts funny things. Go check other atpeaceinbozeman posts...he/she isn't serious.........ever.
He/she is obviously fucking with you....and you're all buying it, making yourselves look foolish.
Sorry if that was harsh...not my intention...but c'mon, its a put-on. I hate when people embarass themselves without knowing it.
Seriously, atpeaceinbozeman, I'm sorry, but this reeks of "scam". Ok, so you'll give receipts to those who want 'em, but how do we know it actually went to anyone but yourself? If folks want to make a donation, there are already plenty of *legitimate* organizations out there already.
|
|
|
|
|
atpeaceinbozeman
Apr 23, 2006, 4:01 AM
Post #44 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 17, 2002
Posts: 478
|
Hate to burst your bubble, but you're thinking of apieceinbozeman.
He's not me, and this is a real issue.
Take some time and research what has been presented.
Tom
|
|
|
|
|
tyify
Apr 27, 2006, 6:42 PM
Post #45 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 22, 2003
Posts: 905
|
It's one of the few developed places close to bozeman. I support keeping it open as its a fun, close to town place to bring beginners. And how many times have you run into non climbers up there? I've never ran into any...
|
|
|
|
|
mbg
Apr 28, 2006, 6:37 PM
Post #46 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2003
Posts: 372
|
Evidently the ongoing bridge repair and 2-way traffic situation on the west side of Bozeman Pass has lead to a couple "close calls" that have been reported to the highway patrol or dept. of transportation. To avoid accidents the DOT is thinking about shutting down the parking area until the (hopefully positive) resolution of the land deal.
In the meantime please be EXTREMELY careful and courteous when pulling in and out of the parking area so we don't loose access.
Thanks,
Bryan
|
|
|
|
|
alderak
Apr 28, 2006, 8:31 PM
Post #47 of 61
(12689 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 18, 2003
Posts: 155
|
I can personally vouch for the sincere intent of this post by atpeaceinbozeman.
Please help out if you can and want to, but if you don't, at least keep the criticism constructive.
Thanks, Davy
|
|
|
|
|
trevzilla
May 2, 2006, 1:27 AM
Post #48 of 61
(15811 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2004
Posts: 164
|
I just want to chip in my 2 cents. . .I'll be sending a letter as soon as school gets out. I think this is a very worthwhile cause, and I'd hate to lose this "choss pile." It's where I first learned to climb, it's where I bring beginners, and it is also where I went after I got off work yesterday to do one pitch of climbing, since I had time to get there and no where else.
|
|
|
|
|
trevzilla
May 2, 2006, 1:27 AM
Post #49 of 61
(15810 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 24, 2004
Posts: 164
|
I just want to chip in my 2 cents. . .I'll be sending a letter as soon as school gets out. I think this is a very worthwhile cause, and I'd hate to lose this "choss pile." It's where I first learned to climb, it's where I bring beginners, and it is also where I went after I got off work yesterday to do one pitch of climbing, since I had time to get there and no where else.
|
|
|
|
|
duckwalk
May 2, 2006, 7:54 PM
Post #50 of 61
(15665 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 15, 2003
Posts: 86
|
I too can vouch for good intent. I did my first trad climb at this place and I would hate to see it not offering the same opportunities for others.
|
|
|
|
|
|
