blooddrive
01-05-2004, 07:16 PM
56602-56626
56602 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:18am
Subject: RE: SUV tagging
> I'm sure you do not believe that there should be no
> personal property, only property of the state.
Unfortunately most Green organizations are against the idea of "Private
Property." Many of these groups abuse the endangered species act to
un-rightfully, and un-constitutionally rip land away from private land
owners:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0301privproperty.htm
http://www.off-road.com/green/takings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
56603 From: rabenius2001 <jrabenius@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:24am
Subject: [FS] Rusty's LCA's for sale
I have a set of Rusty's Off Road adjustable upper and NON adjustable
lower control arms for a 4.5" lift.
They will also work for any lift from 3" to 6", and fit XJ's, TJ's
and ZJ's.
The uppers are adjustable for length, have the stock rubber bushings
in them (out of my 2000 XJ), and are in excellent shape. They've been
in my garage for a year!
The lowers are fixed (non-adjustable) with new urethane bushings.
The uppers cost $170, and the lowers are $115 new.
I want $125.00 OBO for the set.
SORRY, I do not have springs or shocks!
John Rabenius
480-598-0772 Home
480-236-4509 Cell
56604 From: <Skydivedrunk@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:26am
Subject: Re: Fwd: You've got to be kidding me!!!
Let me know if they respond and what they say to that one.
Chris
56605 From: flyingmonkeydemon <hockeydawg@m...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:27am
Subject: Re: SUV tagging
Ooops, that was my bad english. I meant to say that they don't
believe in private property. I'm blaming that one on the California
public school system.
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> > I'm sure you do not believe that there should be no
> > personal property, only property of the state.
>
> Unfortunately most Green organizations are against the idea of
"Private
> Property." Many of these groups abuse the endangered
species act to
> un-rightfully, and un-constitutionally rip land away from private
land
> owners:
>
>
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0301privproperty.
htm
>
> http://www.off-road.com/green/takings.html
56606 From: Gary MacLaren <gmaclaren@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:32am
Subject: RANGE Magazine.com - Problem with Parks.htm
2003 Calendars Available September!
Subscriptions click here for 20% off!
E-Mail: info@rangemagazine.com
Summer 2002 Contents | Git Home!
Until a few years ago, you had a better chance of getting hit by a meteorite than of hearing anything negative about protected areas—the parks, forests, refuges and wilderness areas scattered across the American landscape. Times change, though, and the park that was once seen as a friendly vacation spot is now more often viewed by rural Americans as a threat to hearth and home. This change is due mainly to the impact of environmentalism on protected area policies.
Through litigation and legislation, environmentalists have dramatically increased the number of protected areas in America, the acreage protected, put restrictions on multiple use, and restrictions on private property located anywhere near the parks. In the process, they have converted what was once a small and relatively benign system of protected areas into a large network of increasingly linked sites that can threaten property ownership, restrict property use, degrade property resources, increase property management and development costs, and reduce property value.
The Protected Areas
There are about two dozen major global, federal and state protected area programs in America. Each has its own legislative, regulatory and policy framework, and each represents a unique threat to rural communities.
America hosts three major kinds of global protected areas—Ramsar Wetlands, World Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. These include over 80 separate sites, covering 50 million acres. Most are federally managed. Because they were established through formal international agreement, and because environmentalists routinely use this fact to bring international pressure to bear on domestic land-use policies affecting the sites, major sovereignty issues have been raised in conjunction with these programs.
The federal government owns outright about 29 percent of all land in America. Over half of this—more than one in every seven acres—is designated as a federal protected area. Over 3,000 federal protected areas are designated in just seven major categories (see box).
National parks are managed by the National Park Service, national forests by the U.S. Forest Service, and wildlife refuges by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Wilderness areas, landmarks, wild and scenic rivers and national trails mostly occur within these federal protected areas, but they can also occur on private property.
In addition to the federally managed land, thousands of areas are protected by states, counties, municipalities and river authorities covering about nine percent of the country. Another 6.2 million acres are controlled by the 1,200 environmental land trusts currently operating in America—most of it by The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Land and The Conservation Fund.
Land at Risk
Protected areas affect every corner of the American landscape. Adjacent and nearby land is at greatest risk of impact, but property located at great distances from a park can also be affected. Land located between two or more
Bull moose at Grand Teton National Park, Wyo.
©Thomas Kitchin, Tom Stack & Associates
.
protected areas, for example, is at special risk of targeting for acquisition. That risk is compounded when property is located along a stream connecting two parks, or along a rail line that is a candidate for conversion to a public use trail through the Rails-to-Trails program.
Upstream property is also at special risk. Environmentalists see any land management practices upstream of protected areas as fair game, especially activities potentially affecting water quality. Animal feeding operations and livestock use of the riparian zone are a special focus of environmentalists, of land management agencies that take a watershed-based approach to property control, and of water quality regulatory agencies.
Just operating within sight of a park can also be a risk. Almost any activity in the “viewshed” of a wild and scenic river, for example, can be refused a federal permit, delayed by advocacy group harassment, or prohibited through litigation. Major protected areas with viewshed impacts include national scenic byways, national trails, national heritage areas and national historic landmarks. Because the areal extent of the impact includes hundreds and sometimes thousands of square miles, viewshed programs are among the most damaging of all environmental programs to rural Americans.
Protected Areas
No. of Sites Area/Length
National Parks
384 84 million acres
National Wildlife Refuges
535 94 million acres
National Forests & Grasslands
175 191 million acres
Wilderness Areas
497 90 million acres
National Natural Landmarks
587 90 million acres
National Wild & Scenic Rivers
159 11,294 miles
National Trails
.
820+
. 29,000 miles
.
The Impacts: Property Targeting
Some protected area programs, like the Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails programs, authorize condemnation of private property. More common is simple targeting of land for acquisition. On top of owning 29 percent of the country, federal land management agencies plan to acquire another 17,000 square miles of private land in the future to establish new parks, expand existing areas and buy out inholders. Land most at risk of targeting includes inholdings, adjacent and nearby properties, and land located along “linkage lines” between existing protected areas. Other high-risk properties include those with any kind of surface water, old or climax vegetation, rare biological habitats, unusual geological formations, scenic vistas or historic sites.
Endangered Species
By both law and policy, most federal lands are managed for the protection, reproduction and spread of endangered species. The National Wildlife Refuge system includes habitat for some 249 listed species, and 56 refuges were acquired specifically to protect those organisms.
Any land management policy that favors endangered species is of special concern to nearby landowners. The spread of endangered species from parks to private property usually means the coercive imposition of federal property controls, which can affect virtually all productive use of the land—from traditional farming, ranching and timber operations to suburban home construction. Property value can decline by over 90 percent in such cases, and the number of willing buyers can evaporate. Even when total use of the property is not prohibited, property management and development costs can skyrocket. Unless vegetation is carefully managed, property located near a park is at significantly greater risk of impact from contamination by endangered species than property located further away.
Rural communities that rely on multiple use of the public lands have a related problem—force-listing of species through litigation to restrict historic water and grazing rights. The newest crop of candidate species for federal listing includes several that environmentalists say they hope “will dramatically affect public lands livestock grazing.” These include the mountain plover, mountain quail, yellow-billed cuckoo and sage grouse (known as the “spotted owl of the sagebrush sea”).
Pests & Predators
The harboring of predators in nearby parks has been an issue on western rangelands for 100 years, and it is of increasing concern as predator reintroduction increases and lethal control methods are sharply curtailed. Ranchers are also increasingly concerned that livestock diseases like brucellosis will spread from infected bison to disease-free stock. Although this particular issue has historically focused on the bison in Yellowstone National Park, the concern may spread as environmentalists promote the reintroduction of bison into other parks surrounded by cattle operations.
Wilderness designation also increases the threat of pest outbreaks on nearby property, especially where “leave it alone” management policies and dense, overmature forests combine to produce destructive pest eruptions. In a 1983 outbreak of southern pine beetle in Texas, for example, environmental litigation and Forest Service wilderness policies caused severe economic losses when the outbreak spread to nearby private lands.
Fire
Land is also at much greater risk of fire damage when it is adjacent to a federal protected area. Over 10,000 fires a year typically occur on land protected by the Forest Service alone, and nearly half a million acres burn annually. Tens of thousands of fires also start on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and homes can be destroyed. The threat of fire damage has increased in the last 30 years because of ecosystem management policies that emphasize a “let it burn” approach to wildfire control. While the number of wildfires declined from 1970-1990, the number of acres burned during that time nearly doubled.
Natural Resource Damage
One of the most ironic impacts of protected area management is the ecological damage it causes. Some public rangelands have been overgrazed by wild horses and burros, for example, and long-term mismanagement of
Mount Rainier and meadows at Indian Henry’s Hunting Ground, Rainier NP, Wash.
©Lynn Gerig, Tom Stack & Associates
.
Yellowstone National Park has led to severe overgrazing by elk and bison. This can damage the value of water as well as grazing rights through increased soil erosion, bad water quality and hydrological impacts. Off-site private land resources, such as downstream trout fisheries, can also be affected.
Endangered species management policies can also hurt natural resources. The many parks that protect golden-cheeked warbler habitat in Texas are a good example. Warbler habitat includes dense cedar thickets that shade out grass, poison the soil, wipe out native plant communities, ruin wildlife habitat and reduce biological diversity. Cedar is especially damaging to rivers and aquifers, intercepting 80 percent of the rain that falls on it and sucking up massive volumes of ground water (see Range, Spring 2002).
Harassment and Litigation
There is no greater focus for advocacy group harassment and litigation than America’s parks and protected areas. Major groups include the Wilderness Society, National Parks and Conservation Association and National Wildlife Refuge Association, but hundreds of local groups focus on influencing how specific parks are managed. Some pride themselves in suing over park management policies, and ballyhoo their lawsuits in fund-raising literature.
Advocacy group harassment and litigation can have a big impact on land owners and users as environmentalists try to control property use in the upper watersheds of the protected areas, in vast buffer zones around them, and anywhere else that can be construed as necessary for site protection.
Environmental Espionage
Few environmental issues infuriate landowners more than “environmental espionage”—the covert collection of environmental data on private property without the landowner’s knowledge or consent. In many cases, the information is used to target property for acquisition. Under the National Natural Landmarks program, for example, 363 Texas properties were studied for inclusion in the landmark system by the National Park Service. Most were private and many were evaluated covertly. Covert data is often used to fight property development in buffer zones around protected areas. Landowners in close proximity to and upstream of protected areas are at especially high risk.
Property Value
Parks can be an asset to nearby landowners in suburban areas, increasing property value because of the privacy they provide and the assurance they afford against some kinds of property devaluing development. In rural areas, conversely, parks can lower property value by increasing property management and development costs, or by reducing the “highest and best use” of the property at appraisal. Historic parks are notorious for this but any protected area that leads to property use or management restrictions in buffer zones around a park can threaten value.
Tax Revenues
When productive land is converted to a park, the financial flow of property taxes generated from the use of that land dries up. And because property taxes are usually a zero-sum game, loss of property taxes on some land means higher property taxes for all other landowners in the county. The loss of tax revenue has long been an issue, and both the state and federal government in some cases make annual PILT payments (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) to host counties. Payments often do not cover the revenue shortfall, however, and tax loss from the sale of land to environmental land trusts or through the establishment of environmental easements is almost never recovered or reimbursed.
Restriction of Public Works Projects
An important indirect impact of protected areas is their use as a reason to kill or modify public works projects that benefit rural Americans. In some cases this impact is built into the underlying law. A key provision of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, for example, is that “federal agencies cannot assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on river values.” Increasingly, however, the impact occurs as a byproduct of protected area policies. Last year’s train wreck at the Klamath Basin is a good example (Range, Fall 2001) where endangered species harbored by two national wildlife refuges were used to abrogate long-standing water rights agreements.
Epilogue
In a scant quarter century, environmentalists have converted a small and relatively benign system of protected areas into a spaghetti bowl of government land-control units that can threaten property ownership, restrict property use, degrade property resources, increase property management and development costs, and reduce property value. Today parks play an important role in the rape of rural America. For private property owners, and for those who make a living on the public lands, protected area policies have become as much a threat as a promise.
Jeff Goodson, a regular contributor to Range, is president of JW Goodson Associates, Inc., a property consulting company. He can be reached at 1-800-998-8481 or by e-mail at <jwgoodson@aol.com>.
Summer 2002 Contents | Git Home!
To Subscribe: Please click here or call 1-800-RANGE-4-U for a special web price
Copyright © 1998-2002 RANGE magazine
For problems or questions regarding this site, please contact langier@volcano.net or cj@rangemagazine.com
last page update: 6.10.02
56607 From: robert_j_rogers2 <robert.rogers@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:44am
Subject: Re: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
If you insist, I will make a remark. I have been to Mexico city,
Tokyo, Shanghi, and and New Delhi. I would like to see your 7200
square feet support that family of four. We are not overcrowded, we
are over exceeding what the earth can support. Our "lifestyle" uses
up resources that no other species on earth can approach. Our
consumption of material goods far exceededs what we can replace. If
you have taken math you must realize that this is not a balanced
equation. We do not need to "reduce the population". ZPG is not the
answer.
Let us see if your 7200 square feet will support the family. That
includes the
>
> Sorry guys the World IS NOT over-populated. If you believe that,
then you
> are buying into an "environmentalist" movement so EXTREME that it
wants to
> see the world population reduced to less than 500 Million - OR - to
put it
> another way, they want to ELIMINATE (exterminate?) more than 5.7
BILLION
> people. "The world is over-populated" movement came from
> wacko-eco-nazi-extremist and has been proven to be false time and
time
> again.
>
> If you take everyone in the world and divide up the State of Texas,
every
> person on earth (including babies only a few months old) would get
just
> under 1200 sq ft. I think the average family size world-wide is
about 4
> children per household.. which means family units that average 6
people.
> That is 7200 sq feet per family. That is 1/3rd LARGER than the
property my
> house sits on. Properly configured, my house could easily handle a
family
> of about 10.
>
> Another way to look at it, if you CROWDED everyone together,
averaging 4
> people per square yard. (Each person gets a 18" x 18" square, on
average;
> remember that this includes infants, toddlers and children) They
would fill
> just under 500 square miles. For comparison, the Phoenix Urbanized
Area in
> 1990 was 741 square miles. So if you leveled the Phoenix area, you
could
> put the entire population of the world in less than 2/3rds of it.
>
> And don't start about there not being enough land to grow the food
to feed
> everyone either. When our own Government pays farmers NOT to grow
food, and
> when vast ancient farms in the former Soviet Union remain un-plowed
and
> un-planted, and when UN satellites are used in some countries to
make sure
> farmers don't plow and plant in "unauthorized" fields. The UN is
using this
> so called "over-population" movement to further their goals of a
one-world
> government.
>
> m2c,
>
> - Mike
56608 From: Michael Wixom <h8pvmnt@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:16pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Much more organized. Looks Good
Mike Wixom
85 CJ-7
----- Original Message -----
From: "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] GroupBuy Website updated
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
56609 From: Robert Holmes <robert@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:52am
Subject: RE: Re: I am amazed!
True but does the purchase of a 4x4 mean you will actually use it, I highly
doubt it.
Among the problems that I have head with the tagging of vehicles I head
destruction of private property. How? defacing yes, Illegal probably, but I
fail to see the destruction involved.
Also what good are you going to do after the vehicle has been purchased.
Even if they say oh I hadn't thought of that, they aren't going to sell
their $30,000+ vehicle over a bumper sticker.
Let them hit the Dealer lots and see what happens :p
~Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: eswilliams711@c... [mailto:eswilliams711@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:15 AM
To: dwithers@a...; jeepindog@y...; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
I was thinking that 4 wheeling was a sport for all 4X4 owners with
a passion for off roading.To badmouth owners of other than the ever popular
Jeep(which at one point in its career was built by FoMoCo) is really
shallow.If I had a nickel for every Jeep I've owned for off roading I would
still only have a nickel.Some other companies build a 4X4 that doesn't need
parts swapped out in order to negotiate much of this Az.terrain. I'm sure
there are a few of you who still use Autolite plugs ! Off roading is not
about the vehicle manufacturer,it's about fun!
Steve Williams,
ASA
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56610 From: parajeeper02 <parajeeper02@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:55am
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Looks Good Jason, can't wait to read the product reviews as well as
the install instructions
--- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
56611 From: Kris R <this_chix_tj@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:59am
Subject: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do that, and I think I'll need more hands than just mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
56612 From: jaylalib <jaylalib1@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:00pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
I think for the product reveiws I will just have links to other
peoples opinions. I don't want anyone thinking I would be bias in my
review! LOL
I hope to have a start on these this weekend....
--- In az_vjc@y..., "parajeeper02" <parajeeper02@y...> wrote:
> Looks Good Jason, can't wait to read the product reviews as well as
> the install instructions
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Please let me know what you think....
> >
> >
> > www.4x4groupbuy.com
> >
> > Jason
56613 From: David Withers <dwithers@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:05pm
Subject: RE: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
Kris, before you do this, how many mile are on your TJ?
I was out of warranty and over 50,000 mile on mine when Joe West arranged for Darner to replace mine for $50. They called the $50 a co-payment.
I would call Julio at Darner and get him involved. If he can't help you, Joe and now myself know the service department manager. He too is a really stand up guy.
David Withers
480.215.6992
-----Original Message-----
From: Kris R [mailto:this_chix_tj@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:59 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do that, and I think I'll need more hands than just mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
56614 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:20pm
Subject: [FS] 33" Radial TSL's
Price: $280
Contact: Call Joe @ (602) 569-1460
Have (4) 33x10.5x15 Radial TSL Swampers, excellent condition, no holes, no cuts, low mileage
Joe Bornkessel
56615 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:54pm
Subject: RE: Re: World Over-Populated?
I think you missed the point -- or do you think that Texas is the only place
capable of producing edible vegetation? The 7200 sqft per family is just
Texas. There is a heck of alot more land out there to produce food on.
Exceeding what the earth can support? I think not. ESPECIALLY when farmers
are paid NOT to grow food, when food rots in warehouses because of
bureaucratic red-tape, when farmers are fined by their country when they are
caught by UN satellites plowing and planting in an "unauthorized" field.
Each year, our Material Goods recycling programs get better and better.
Zanker Road Landfill in California recycles more than 90% of the incoming
material.
Sure eventually we may run out of fossil fuels, however there are more than
1000 patents that eliminate the need for fossil fuels locked up by the oil
companies that own them.
Anyone that buys into the "Overpopulated World" movement is making
themselves a pawn to be used in the march toward a one-world government, or
a new world order. This is an order I will fight until it is the last thing
that I do. The only thing a one world government will guarantee is the loss
of individual freedom for the sake of "socialism."
- Mike
"NOT a socialist"
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_j_rogers2 [mailto:robert.rogers@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:45 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
If you insist, I will make a remark. I have been to Mexico city,
Tokyo, Shanghi, and and New Delhi. I would like to see your 7200
square feet support that family of four. We are not overcrowded, we
are over exceeding what the earth can support. Our "lifestyle" uses
up resources that no other species on earth can approach. Our
consumption of material goods far exceededs what we can replace. If
you have taken math you must realize that this is not a balanced
equation. We do not need to "reduce the population". ZPG is not the
answer.
56616 From: Theresa Kruize <theresakruize@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
Where do you live???
--- Kris R <this_chix_tj@y...> wrote:
> I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found
> someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out
> of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do
> that, and I think I'll need more hands than just
> mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have
> a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will
> gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the
> beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really
> excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
56617 From: ccgaiser <ccgaiser@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:16pm
Subject: Re: I am amazed!
So you know, absolutely without a doubt, that GM and DC corp. have
never given any money to the greenies? Only those "assholes", like
myself, who buy and drive Fords.
Yes David, very ignorant!
Chris
66 CJ-5
--- In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> The same reason I'll never have a 8.8 under my pos. Ignorant
maybe, but
> supportive of the destruction of our sport, never.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeepindog [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:41 AM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
>
>
> Awww, is someone feeling like an only child??? I guess no one
> else's opinion about his opinion is allowed, right? And as far as
> the name-calling goes, I must say I am proud of you. LOL!
Remember,
> if it wasn't for all of those Ford-buying sphincters, we wouldn't
> have as many 8.8s to swap under our junk!!!
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha hahaaaaaa! ;)
>
> Lachlan (can't wait to read my emails later...)
>
> In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> > He has the right to his opinion. IF you want to talk about
> supporting
> > the greenies, look at all you assholes who buy fords. Ford is one
> of
> > the largest supporters of greenies.
> > Get a clue and give it a rest guys
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Baney [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:09 AM
> > To: suv@c...
> > Cc: Jeep List
> > Subject: [az_vjc] I am amazed!
> >
> >
> > I am very amazed that you support destroying someone's personal
> > property. Placing a sticker on someone's vehicle is defacing
personal
> property, no
> > matter how you look at it. What gives you the right to "tag"
> someone's
> > vehicle because you don't like it, or you THINK he/she should not
> drive
> > it? This act of yours is very immature and I would expect this
out
> of
> > my 2 year old, not an adult.
> >
> > Do you realize that you are WASTING our trees? Do you think
people
> > leave the stickers on their vehicle? I would say they rip them
off
> and
> > throw them out (as your pictures show)! And now you are
SUPPORTING
> the
> > loggers! I thought you all tied yourselves to trees so the
loggers
> > wouldn't cut them down? What a waste of a tree!
> >
> > PLEASE keep "tagging" your vehicles, this just gives us
recreations
> more
> > power to show legislature how irresponsible the "greenies" are.
> >
> > Appalled in Chandler, Arizona
> >
> > Mike Baney
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56618 From: Scott Kruize <scottkruize@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:36pm
Subject: RE: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
Mike,
I like your thinking.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:06 AM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
>The world is over-populated
>> I personally have issues with famlies that have 7 children in an
>> overpopulated world, but that's another whole arguement
Sorry guys the World IS NOT over-populated. If you believe that, then
you are buying into an "environmentalist" movement so EXTREME that it
wants to see the world population reduced to less than 500 Million - OR
- to put it another way, they want to ELIMINATE (exterminate?) more than
5.7 BILLION people. "The world is over-populated" movement came from
wacko-eco-nazi-extremist and has been proven to be false time and time
again.
If you take everyone in the world and divide up the State of Texas,
every person on earth (including babies only a few months old) would get
just under 1200 sq ft. I think the average family size world-wide is
about 4 children per household.. which means family units that average 6
people. That is 7200 sq feet per family. That is 1/3rd LARGER than the
property my house sits on. Properly configured, my house could easily
handle a family of about 10.
Another way to look at it, if you CROWDED everyone together, averaging 4
people per square yard. (Each person gets a 18" x 18" square, on
average; remember that this includes infants, toddlers and children)
They would fill just under 500 square miles. For comparison, the Phoenix
Urbanized Area in 1990 was 741 square miles. So if you leveled the
Phoenix area, you could put the entire population of the world in less
than 2/3rds of it.
And don't start about there not being enough land to grow the food to
feed everyone either. When our own Government pays farmers NOT to grow
food, and when vast ancient farms in the former Soviet Union remain
un-plowed and un-planted, and when UN satellites are used in some
countries to make sure farmers don't plow and plant in "unauthorized"
fields. The UN is using this so called "over-population" movement to
further their goals of a one-world government.
m2c,
- Mike
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56619 From: bermboy2000 <bermboy@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:38pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Looks good, I especially like the picture of the custom rockers;P
Scott Maiden
--- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
56620 From: jaylalib <jaylalib1@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:47pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
I hope that was your jeeps better side!
--- In az_vjc@y..., "bermboy2000" <bermboy@h...> wrote:
> Looks good, I especially like the picture of the custom rockers;P
>
> Scott Maiden
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Please let me know what you think....
> >
> >
> > www.4x4groupbuy.com
> >
> > Jason
56621 From: Scott Kruize <scottkruize@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:50pm
Subject: RE: Re: I am amazed!
David,
By purchasing a "recycled" 8.8 you are not encouraging the purchase of
new Ford's. These Fords are already purchased and paid for. What you can
influence is supply and demand of the "recycled" 8.8s which won't have
any affect on the quantity of new Fords produced. By "recycling" that
8.8 you are already being environmentally conscious.
Besides, you bought a Chevy Trailblazer for your wife. A nice new
minivan would have provided more space for your family and been more
energy efficient. I think you'd look mighty cool cruising around in the
family van ;) <Devil's advocate mode OFF>
Regards,
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: David Withers [mailto:dwithers@a...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:55 AM
To: 'jeepindog'; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
The same reason I'll never have a 8.8 under my pos. Ignorant maybe, but
supportive of the destruction of our sport, never.
-----Original Message-----
From: jeepindog [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:41 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
Awww, is someone feeling like an only child??? I guess no one
else's opinion about his opinion is allowed, right? And as far as
the name-calling goes, I must say I am proud of you. LOL! Remember,
if it wasn't for all of those Ford-buying sphincters, we wouldn't
have as many 8.8s to swap under our junk!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha hahaaaaaa! ;)
Lachlan (can't wait to read my emails later...)
In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> He has the right to his opinion. IF you want to talk about
supporting
> the greenies, look at all you assholes who buy fords. Ford is one
of
> the largest supporters of greenies.
> Get a clue and give it a rest guys
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Baney [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:09 AM
> To: suv@c...
> Cc: Jeep List
> Subject: [az_vjc] I am amazed!
>
>
> I am very amazed that you support destroying someone's personal
> property. Placing a sticker on someone's vehicle is defacing personal
property, no
> matter how you look at it. What gives you the right to "tag"
someone's
> vehicle because you don't like it, or you THINK he/she should not
drive
> it? This act of yours is very immature and I would expect this out
of
> my 2 year old, not an adult.
>
> Do you realize that you are WASTING our trees? Do you think people
> leave the stickers on their vehicle? I would say they rip them off
and
> throw them out (as your pictures show)! And now you are SUPPORTING
the
> loggers! I thought you all tied yourselves to trees so the loggers
> wouldn't cut them down? What a waste of a tree!
>
> PLEASE keep "tagging" your vehicles, this just gives us recreations
more
> power to show legislature how irresponsible the "greenies" are.
>
> Appalled in Chandler, Arizona
>
> Mike Baney
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56622 From: Mitch Woodward <mitchwoodward@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: I'm appalled
Joe et all,
I'll definately concede, it's be wasted to try and explain myself in this
forum.
Have a good day all,
Mitch (Tree hugging *******)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe-CJ7" <Joe-CJ7@j...>
To: "Jeep Club" <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: I'm appalled
> Mitch I think you are out numbered on this one. You should concede now.
>
> Joe Kearney
> Joe-CJ7@J...
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeepin_in_az [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:24 AM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I'm appalled
>
> Sorry Mitch, but they have NO RIGHT to destroy someone elses
> PERSONAL property!! It's like someone stealing **** out of your
> Jeep, or vehicle, or house...doesn't matter if they have 1 child and
> drive a Suburban. It is defacing personal property.
>
> Whats wrong with having 7 children? The world is over-populated, but
> there is nothing wrong with procreating, and its fun! If they can
> handle 7 children then let them. JW, how many you got, 6, 7, 8??
> Can you handle it? (I know he can and DOES)
>
>
> Mike Baney, just my views.
>
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "Mitch Woodward" <mitchwoodward@h...> wrote:
> > MessageScott,
> >
> > I've visited this website. Frankly, if you read their own rules,
> they are targeting soccer moms with hulking suv's, and others who
> don't need to drive such large suv's. They suggest not tagging
> 4x4's, pickups, old trucks, and work vehicles. Read for yourself at
> the end.
> >
> > I personally have issues with famlies that have 7 children in an
> overpopulated world, but that's another whole arguement
> >
> > Mitch
> >
> > Our Rules & Guidlines for Successful and
> > Ethical Big Game SUV Tagging:
> > 1. Only tag the big ones. The Ford Expeditions and Excursions (I
> avoid the Explorers), Chevy or GMC Suburbans, 1500's, 2500's which
> often go by the Yukon and Tahoe name. The Cadillac Escalade, Toyota
> Land Cruiser, Land and Range Rovers and Lexus LX470 are all to be
> considered targets of opportunity. It is best to tag in the affluent
> suburbs where you will notice the Urban Assault Vechicles are never
> dirty. I figure that most people in rural areas are probably using
> them for a functional purpose and therefore don't tag in these areas.
> >
> > 2. Do not tag small SUV's such as any Suburu, Toyota 4Runner, etc.
> Owners of these small and reasonably fuel efficient SUV's keep
> complaining to me when they are tagged. We are after only the
> grotesque and bloated gas guzzling members of the SUV species.
> >
> > 3. Don't tag commercial vehicles, contractors, or any business
> affiliated vehicles. Also no pickup trucks. We have no gripe with
> people who really need these gas-guzzlers. It's the morons who are
> keeping up with the Jones' that raise my back hairs.
> >
> > 4. Don't retag vehicles that you recognize as already tagged (we
> can usually spot left over pieces from the original tagging).
> >
> > 5. We only tag late model vehicles, not some beat up old Suburban
> some poor soul has inherited.
> >
> > 6. Don't tag just because it's a four-wheel drive vehicle. Only the
> really big obnoxious ones.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Kruize
> > To: suv@c...
> > Cc: AZ_VJC
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:26 PM
> > Subject: [az_vjc] I'm appalled
> >
> >
> > TO: suv@c...
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just came across your website and I'm appalled at your
> behavior. I cannot believe that you advocate criminal behavior such
> as tagging. Who's to say that the owner of a Suburban doesn't have 7
> kids and needs the room? Maybe they run a charity and need the space
> to help the needy. Or just maybe they pickup little old ladies every
> Sunday and take them to church? To target such vehicles without
> discretion is just plain wrong.
> >
> > I AM AN "ENVIRONMENTALIST"! My good friend Stu said it best in
> the following article. I think you should all read it and think about
> the choices you are making. You have no idea what the word means.
> >
> > http://stu-offroad.com/misc/environment.htm
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Scott Kruize
> > Avondale, AZ
> >
> > PS: I own a gas sipping '01 Honda Civic as my daily driver. My
> Jeep is a recreational vehicle. I am doing my part to help out in a
> manner that produces results.
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
56623 From: zj_lopez <off-road@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:56pm
Subject: Amazed, World over-populated and appalled
Guys and Gals:
Can we give it a rest?, lighten up people this topic is getting way
to old and tired. I don't mean to preach but aren't we guarantied by
our constitution to "the pursuit of happiness". Now for some people
happiness might be a house in the suburbs, 2.5 kids and a 4x4 Ford
Excursion with a V10 they only use to haul groceries for two miles,
for others it might be a Hybrid vehicle that gets "umpteen" miles to
the gallon, taking the bus to work because they help the environment,
etc. It doesn't matter, people in this country are supposed to be
free, and that means that as long as you don't break the law, you can
do what ever you want. Not everyone needs to like or agree with what
other people do, but they do need to respect them, as I'm sure we
want to be respected. I read a few posts back that people were
assholes because they purchased Fords, fine I'm sure that person has
reasons for feeling that way about Fords and will most likely never
buy one himself, buy does that make a few hundre d thousand people
assholes?, I don't think so. What I personally think a Ford, GM,
Chrysler, or any make is MY opinion, I'm neither right or wrong,
I have my point of view, that probably comes from personal
experience, and that's it, nothing more nothing less.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is don't get all bent out of shape
trying to prove you are right, just accept that people are entitled
to their opinion, and have the right to be idiots if the so choose,
as long as they don't hurt other people and/or property, why care
about it?.
My two cents.
Jose
56624 From: intertwingled <intertwingled@q...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:07pm
Subject: what will really happen
I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
particular, will find a way.
Tony
--
even the safest course is fraught with peril
56625 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:07pm
Subject: Re: what will really happen
I'm waiting for the polar caps to melt to clean out
my garage. The weight shift should keep the Earth
on its rotational axis. ;-)
-Roger
intertwingled wrote:
> I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
> Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
> drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
>
> No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
> burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
> until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
> melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
> rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
> lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
> particular, will find a way.
>
> Tony
56626 From: Chris Krieg <rv6a@m...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:10pm
Subject: Re: what will really happen
Surfs up
> From: "intertwingled" <intertwingled@q...>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:07:00 -0700
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] what will really happen
>
>
> I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
> Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
> drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
>
> No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
> burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
> until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
> melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
> rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
> lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
> particular, will find a way.
>
> Tony
>
>
> --
> even the safest course is fraught with peril
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
56602 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:18am
Subject: RE: SUV tagging
> I'm sure you do not believe that there should be no
> personal property, only property of the state.
Unfortunately most Green organizations are against the idea of "Private
Property." Many of these groups abuse the endangered species act to
un-rightfully, and un-constitutionally rip land away from private land
owners:
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0301privproperty.htm
http://www.off-road.com/green/takings.html
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
ADVERTISEMENT
56603 From: rabenius2001 <jrabenius@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:24am
Subject: [FS] Rusty's LCA's for sale
I have a set of Rusty's Off Road adjustable upper and NON adjustable
lower control arms for a 4.5" lift.
They will also work for any lift from 3" to 6", and fit XJ's, TJ's
and ZJ's.
The uppers are adjustable for length, have the stock rubber bushings
in them (out of my 2000 XJ), and are in excellent shape. They've been
in my garage for a year!
The lowers are fixed (non-adjustable) with new urethane bushings.
The uppers cost $170, and the lowers are $115 new.
I want $125.00 OBO for the set.
SORRY, I do not have springs or shocks!
John Rabenius
480-598-0772 Home
480-236-4509 Cell
56604 From: <Skydivedrunk@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 7:26am
Subject: Re: Fwd: You've got to be kidding me!!!
Let me know if they respond and what they say to that one.
Chris
56605 From: flyingmonkeydemon <hockeydawg@m...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:27am
Subject: Re: SUV tagging
Ooops, that was my bad english. I meant to say that they don't
believe in private property. I'm blaming that one on the California
public school system.
--- In az_vjc@y..., "Chatfield, Mike" <Mike@A...> wrote:
> > I'm sure you do not believe that there should be no
> > personal property, only property of the state.
>
> Unfortunately most Green organizations are against the idea of
"Private
> Property." Many of these groups abuse the endangered
species act to
> un-rightfully, and un-constitutionally rip land away from private
land
> owners:
>
>
http://www.enterstageright.com/archive/articles/0301privproperty.
htm
>
> http://www.off-road.com/green/takings.html
56606 From: Gary MacLaren <gmaclaren@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:32am
Subject: RANGE Magazine.com - Problem with Parks.htm
2003 Calendars Available September!
Subscriptions click here for 20% off!
E-Mail: info@rangemagazine.com
Summer 2002 Contents | Git Home!
Until a few years ago, you had a better chance of getting hit by a meteorite than of hearing anything negative about protected areas—the parks, forests, refuges and wilderness areas scattered across the American landscape. Times change, though, and the park that was once seen as a friendly vacation spot is now more often viewed by rural Americans as a threat to hearth and home. This change is due mainly to the impact of environmentalism on protected area policies.
Through litigation and legislation, environmentalists have dramatically increased the number of protected areas in America, the acreage protected, put restrictions on multiple use, and restrictions on private property located anywhere near the parks. In the process, they have converted what was once a small and relatively benign system of protected areas into a large network of increasingly linked sites that can threaten property ownership, restrict property use, degrade property resources, increase property management and development costs, and reduce property value.
The Protected Areas
There are about two dozen major global, federal and state protected area programs in America. Each has its own legislative, regulatory and policy framework, and each represents a unique threat to rural communities.
America hosts three major kinds of global protected areas—Ramsar Wetlands, World Biosphere Reserves and World Heritage Sites. These include over 80 separate sites, covering 50 million acres. Most are federally managed. Because they were established through formal international agreement, and because environmentalists routinely use this fact to bring international pressure to bear on domestic land-use policies affecting the sites, major sovereignty issues have been raised in conjunction with these programs.
The federal government owns outright about 29 percent of all land in America. Over half of this—more than one in every seven acres—is designated as a federal protected area. Over 3,000 federal protected areas are designated in just seven major categories (see box).
National parks are managed by the National Park Service, national forests by the U.S. Forest Service, and wildlife refuges by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. Wilderness areas, landmarks, wild and scenic rivers and national trails mostly occur within these federal protected areas, but they can also occur on private property.
In addition to the federally managed land, thousands of areas are protected by states, counties, municipalities and river authorities covering about nine percent of the country. Another 6.2 million acres are controlled by the 1,200 environmental land trusts currently operating in America—most of it by The Nature Conservancy, The Trust for Public Land and The Conservation Fund.
Land at Risk
Protected areas affect every corner of the American landscape. Adjacent and nearby land is at greatest risk of impact, but property located at great distances from a park can also be affected. Land located between two or more
Bull moose at Grand Teton National Park, Wyo.
©Thomas Kitchin, Tom Stack & Associates
.
protected areas, for example, is at special risk of targeting for acquisition. That risk is compounded when property is located along a stream connecting two parks, or along a rail line that is a candidate for conversion to a public use trail through the Rails-to-Trails program.
Upstream property is also at special risk. Environmentalists see any land management practices upstream of protected areas as fair game, especially activities potentially affecting water quality. Animal feeding operations and livestock use of the riparian zone are a special focus of environmentalists, of land management agencies that take a watershed-based approach to property control, and of water quality regulatory agencies.
Just operating within sight of a park can also be a risk. Almost any activity in the “viewshed” of a wild and scenic river, for example, can be refused a federal permit, delayed by advocacy group harassment, or prohibited through litigation. Major protected areas with viewshed impacts include national scenic byways, national trails, national heritage areas and national historic landmarks. Because the areal extent of the impact includes hundreds and sometimes thousands of square miles, viewshed programs are among the most damaging of all environmental programs to rural Americans.
Protected Areas
No. of Sites Area/Length
National Parks
384 84 million acres
National Wildlife Refuges
535 94 million acres
National Forests & Grasslands
175 191 million acres
Wilderness Areas
497 90 million acres
National Natural Landmarks
587 90 million acres
National Wild & Scenic Rivers
159 11,294 miles
National Trails
.
820+
. 29,000 miles
.
The Impacts: Property Targeting
Some protected area programs, like the Wild and Scenic Rivers and National Trails programs, authorize condemnation of private property. More common is simple targeting of land for acquisition. On top of owning 29 percent of the country, federal land management agencies plan to acquire another 17,000 square miles of private land in the future to establish new parks, expand existing areas and buy out inholders. Land most at risk of targeting includes inholdings, adjacent and nearby properties, and land located along “linkage lines” between existing protected areas. Other high-risk properties include those with any kind of surface water, old or climax vegetation, rare biological habitats, unusual geological formations, scenic vistas or historic sites.
Endangered Species
By both law and policy, most federal lands are managed for the protection, reproduction and spread of endangered species. The National Wildlife Refuge system includes habitat for some 249 listed species, and 56 refuges were acquired specifically to protect those organisms.
Any land management policy that favors endangered species is of special concern to nearby landowners. The spread of endangered species from parks to private property usually means the coercive imposition of federal property controls, which can affect virtually all productive use of the land—from traditional farming, ranching and timber operations to suburban home construction. Property value can decline by over 90 percent in such cases, and the number of willing buyers can evaporate. Even when total use of the property is not prohibited, property management and development costs can skyrocket. Unless vegetation is carefully managed, property located near a park is at significantly greater risk of impact from contamination by endangered species than property located further away.
Rural communities that rely on multiple use of the public lands have a related problem—force-listing of species through litigation to restrict historic water and grazing rights. The newest crop of candidate species for federal listing includes several that environmentalists say they hope “will dramatically affect public lands livestock grazing.” These include the mountain plover, mountain quail, yellow-billed cuckoo and sage grouse (known as the “spotted owl of the sagebrush sea”).
Pests & Predators
The harboring of predators in nearby parks has been an issue on western rangelands for 100 years, and it is of increasing concern as predator reintroduction increases and lethal control methods are sharply curtailed. Ranchers are also increasingly concerned that livestock diseases like brucellosis will spread from infected bison to disease-free stock. Although this particular issue has historically focused on the bison in Yellowstone National Park, the concern may spread as environmentalists promote the reintroduction of bison into other parks surrounded by cattle operations.
Wilderness designation also increases the threat of pest outbreaks on nearby property, especially where “leave it alone” management policies and dense, overmature forests combine to produce destructive pest eruptions. In a 1983 outbreak of southern pine beetle in Texas, for example, environmental litigation and Forest Service wilderness policies caused severe economic losses when the outbreak spread to nearby private lands.
Fire
Land is also at much greater risk of fire damage when it is adjacent to a federal protected area. Over 10,000 fires a year typically occur on land protected by the Forest Service alone, and nearly half a million acres burn annually. Tens of thousands of fires also start on land controlled by the Bureau of Land Management, National Park Service and U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, and homes can be destroyed. The threat of fire damage has increased in the last 30 years because of ecosystem management policies that emphasize a “let it burn” approach to wildfire control. While the number of wildfires declined from 1970-1990, the number of acres burned during that time nearly doubled.
Natural Resource Damage
One of the most ironic impacts of protected area management is the ecological damage it causes. Some public rangelands have been overgrazed by wild horses and burros, for example, and long-term mismanagement of
Mount Rainier and meadows at Indian Henry’s Hunting Ground, Rainier NP, Wash.
©Lynn Gerig, Tom Stack & Associates
.
Yellowstone National Park has led to severe overgrazing by elk and bison. This can damage the value of water as well as grazing rights through increased soil erosion, bad water quality and hydrological impacts. Off-site private land resources, such as downstream trout fisheries, can also be affected.
Endangered species management policies can also hurt natural resources. The many parks that protect golden-cheeked warbler habitat in Texas are a good example. Warbler habitat includes dense cedar thickets that shade out grass, poison the soil, wipe out native plant communities, ruin wildlife habitat and reduce biological diversity. Cedar is especially damaging to rivers and aquifers, intercepting 80 percent of the rain that falls on it and sucking up massive volumes of ground water (see Range, Spring 2002).
Harassment and Litigation
There is no greater focus for advocacy group harassment and litigation than America’s parks and protected areas. Major groups include the Wilderness Society, National Parks and Conservation Association and National Wildlife Refuge Association, but hundreds of local groups focus on influencing how specific parks are managed. Some pride themselves in suing over park management policies, and ballyhoo their lawsuits in fund-raising literature.
Advocacy group harassment and litigation can have a big impact on land owners and users as environmentalists try to control property use in the upper watersheds of the protected areas, in vast buffer zones around them, and anywhere else that can be construed as necessary for site protection.
Environmental Espionage
Few environmental issues infuriate landowners more than “environmental espionage”—the covert collection of environmental data on private property without the landowner’s knowledge or consent. In many cases, the information is used to target property for acquisition. Under the National Natural Landmarks program, for example, 363 Texas properties were studied for inclusion in the landmark system by the National Park Service. Most were private and many were evaluated covertly. Covert data is often used to fight property development in buffer zones around protected areas. Landowners in close proximity to and upstream of protected areas are at especially high risk.
Property Value
Parks can be an asset to nearby landowners in suburban areas, increasing property value because of the privacy they provide and the assurance they afford against some kinds of property devaluing development. In rural areas, conversely, parks can lower property value by increasing property management and development costs, or by reducing the “highest and best use” of the property at appraisal. Historic parks are notorious for this but any protected area that leads to property use or management restrictions in buffer zones around a park can threaten value.
Tax Revenues
When productive land is converted to a park, the financial flow of property taxes generated from the use of that land dries up. And because property taxes are usually a zero-sum game, loss of property taxes on some land means higher property taxes for all other landowners in the county. The loss of tax revenue has long been an issue, and both the state and federal government in some cases make annual PILT payments (Payments In Lieu of Taxes) to host counties. Payments often do not cover the revenue shortfall, however, and tax loss from the sale of land to environmental land trusts or through the establishment of environmental easements is almost never recovered or reimbursed.
Restriction of Public Works Projects
An important indirect impact of protected areas is their use as a reason to kill or modify public works projects that benefit rural Americans. In some cases this impact is built into the underlying law. A key provision of the Wild and Scenic Rivers Act, for example, is that “federal agencies cannot assist by loan, grant, license, or otherwise in the construction of any water resources project that would have a direct and adverse effect on river values.” Increasingly, however, the impact occurs as a byproduct of protected area policies. Last year’s train wreck at the Klamath Basin is a good example (Range, Fall 2001) where endangered species harbored by two national wildlife refuges were used to abrogate long-standing water rights agreements.
Epilogue
In a scant quarter century, environmentalists have converted a small and relatively benign system of protected areas into a spaghetti bowl of government land-control units that can threaten property ownership, restrict property use, degrade property resources, increase property management and development costs, and reduce property value. Today parks play an important role in the rape of rural America. For private property owners, and for those who make a living on the public lands, protected area policies have become as much a threat as a promise.
Jeff Goodson, a regular contributor to Range, is president of JW Goodson Associates, Inc., a property consulting company. He can be reached at 1-800-998-8481 or by e-mail at <jwgoodson@aol.com>.
Summer 2002 Contents | Git Home!
To Subscribe: Please click here or call 1-800-RANGE-4-U for a special web price
Copyright © 1998-2002 RANGE magazine
For problems or questions regarding this site, please contact langier@volcano.net or cj@rangemagazine.com
last page update: 6.10.02
56607 From: robert_j_rogers2 <robert.rogers@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:44am
Subject: Re: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
If you insist, I will make a remark. I have been to Mexico city,
Tokyo, Shanghi, and and New Delhi. I would like to see your 7200
square feet support that family of four. We are not overcrowded, we
are over exceeding what the earth can support. Our "lifestyle" uses
up resources that no other species on earth can approach. Our
consumption of material goods far exceededs what we can replace. If
you have taken math you must realize that this is not a balanced
equation. We do not need to "reduce the population". ZPG is not the
answer.
Let us see if your 7200 square feet will support the family. That
includes the
>
> Sorry guys the World IS NOT over-populated. If you believe that,
then you
> are buying into an "environmentalist" movement so EXTREME that it
wants to
> see the world population reduced to less than 500 Million - OR - to
put it
> another way, they want to ELIMINATE (exterminate?) more than 5.7
BILLION
> people. "The world is over-populated" movement came from
> wacko-eco-nazi-extremist and has been proven to be false time and
time
> again.
>
> If you take everyone in the world and divide up the State of Texas,
every
> person on earth (including babies only a few months old) would get
just
> under 1200 sq ft. I think the average family size world-wide is
about 4
> children per household.. which means family units that average 6
people.
> That is 7200 sq feet per family. That is 1/3rd LARGER than the
property my
> house sits on. Properly configured, my house could easily handle a
family
> of about 10.
>
> Another way to look at it, if you CROWDED everyone together,
averaging 4
> people per square yard. (Each person gets a 18" x 18" square, on
average;
> remember that this includes infants, toddlers and children) They
would fill
> just under 500 square miles. For comparison, the Phoenix Urbanized
Area in
> 1990 was 741 square miles. So if you leveled the Phoenix area, you
could
> put the entire population of the world in less than 2/3rds of it.
>
> And don't start about there not being enough land to grow the food
to feed
> everyone either. When our own Government pays farmers NOT to grow
food, and
> when vast ancient farms in the former Soviet Union remain un-plowed
and
> un-planted, and when UN satellites are used in some countries to
make sure
> farmers don't plow and plant in "unauthorized" fields. The UN is
using this
> so called "over-population" movement to further their goals of a
one-world
> government.
>
> m2c,
>
> - Mike
56608 From: Michael Wixom <h8pvmnt@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:16pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Much more organized. Looks Good
Mike Wixom
85 CJ-7
----- Original Message -----
From: "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...>
To: <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:05 AM
Subject: [az_vjc] GroupBuy Website updated
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
56609 From: Robert Holmes <robert@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:52am
Subject: RE: Re: I am amazed!
True but does the purchase of a 4x4 mean you will actually use it, I highly
doubt it.
Among the problems that I have head with the tagging of vehicles I head
destruction of private property. How? defacing yes, Illegal probably, but I
fail to see the destruction involved.
Also what good are you going to do after the vehicle has been purchased.
Even if they say oh I hadn't thought of that, they aren't going to sell
their $30,000+ vehicle over a bumper sticker.
Let them hit the Dealer lots and see what happens :p
~Robert
-----Original Message-----
From: eswilliams711@c... [mailto:eswilliams711@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:15 AM
To: dwithers@a...; jeepindog@y...; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: Re: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
I was thinking that 4 wheeling was a sport for all 4X4 owners with
a passion for off roading.To badmouth owners of other than the ever popular
Jeep(which at one point in its career was built by FoMoCo) is really
shallow.If I had a nickel for every Jeep I've owned for off roading I would
still only have a nickel.Some other companies build a 4X4 that doesn't need
parts swapped out in order to negotiate much of this Az.terrain. I'm sure
there are a few of you who still use Autolite plugs ! Off roading is not
about the vehicle manufacturer,it's about fun!
Steve Williams,
ASA
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56610 From: parajeeper02 <parajeeper02@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:55am
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Looks Good Jason, can't wait to read the product reviews as well as
the install instructions
--- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
56611 From: Kris R <this_chix_tj@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 11:59am
Subject: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do that, and I think I'll need more hands than just mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
56612 From: jaylalib <jaylalib1@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:00pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
I think for the product reveiws I will just have links to other
peoples opinions. I don't want anyone thinking I would be bias in my
review! LOL
I hope to have a start on these this weekend....
--- In az_vjc@y..., "parajeeper02" <parajeeper02@y...> wrote:
> Looks Good Jason, can't wait to read the product reviews as well as
> the install instructions
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Please let me know what you think....
> >
> >
> > www.4x4groupbuy.com
> >
> > Jason
56613 From: David Withers <dwithers@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:05pm
Subject: RE: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
Kris, before you do this, how many mile are on your TJ?
I was out of warranty and over 50,000 mile on mine when Joe West arranged for Darner to replace mine for $50. They called the $50 a co-payment.
I would call Julio at Darner and get him involved. If he can't help you, Joe and now myself know the service department manager. He too is a really stand up guy.
David Withers
480.215.6992
-----Original Message-----
From: Kris R [mailto:this_chix_tj@yahoo.com]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:59 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do that, and I think I'll need more hands than just mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Do You Yahoo!?
Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
56614 From: AzVJC Website <azvjc@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:20pm
Subject: [FS] 33" Radial TSL's
Price: $280
Contact: Call Joe @ (602) 569-1460
Have (4) 33x10.5x15 Radial TSL Swampers, excellent condition, no holes, no cuts, low mileage
Joe Bornkessel
56615 From: Chatfield, Mike <Mike@A...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 0:54pm
Subject: RE: Re: World Over-Populated?
I think you missed the point -- or do you think that Texas is the only place
capable of producing edible vegetation? The 7200 sqft per family is just
Texas. There is a heck of alot more land out there to produce food on.
Exceeding what the earth can support? I think not. ESPECIALLY when farmers
are paid NOT to grow food, when food rots in warehouses because of
bureaucratic red-tape, when farmers are fined by their country when they are
caught by UN satellites plowing and planting in an "unauthorized" field.
Each year, our Material Goods recycling programs get better and better.
Zanker Road Landfill in California recycles more than 90% of the incoming
material.
Sure eventually we may run out of fossil fuels, however there are more than
1000 patents that eliminate the need for fossil fuels locked up by the oil
companies that own them.
Anyone that buys into the "Overpopulated World" movement is making
themselves a pawn to be used in the march toward a one-world government, or
a new world order. This is an order I will fight until it is the last thing
that I do. The only thing a one world government will guarantee is the loss
of individual freedom for the sake of "socialism."
- Mike
"NOT a socialist"
-----Original Message-----
From: robert_j_rogers2 [mailto:robert.rogers@c...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:45 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
If you insist, I will make a remark. I have been to Mexico city,
Tokyo, Shanghi, and and New Delhi. I would like to see your 7200
square feet support that family of four. We are not overcrowded, we
are over exceeding what the earth can support. Our "lifestyle" uses
up resources that no other species on earth can approach. Our
consumption of material goods far exceededs what we can replace. If
you have taken math you must realize that this is not a balanced
equation. We do not need to "reduce the population". ZPG is not the
answer.
56616 From: Theresa Kruize <theresakruize@y...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Who's up for helping me remove my exhaust manifold (and has a garage)
Where do you live???
--- Kris R <this_chix_tj@y...> wrote:
> I know this is asking a very lot, but I've found
> someone to weld the thing, I just have to get it out
> of the Jeep. Guess what? Don't know how to do
> that, and I think I'll need more hands than just
> mine. I also live in an apartment, so I don't have
> a garage, and I'm fairly limited on tools. I will
> gladly pay for this service, as well as provide the
> beverages, etc. But doesn't it sound like a really
> excellent wrenching party idea?? :) Kris
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Sign-up for Video Highlights of 2002 FIFA World Cup
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
56617 From: ccgaiser <ccgaiser@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:16pm
Subject: Re: I am amazed!
So you know, absolutely without a doubt, that GM and DC corp. have
never given any money to the greenies? Only those "assholes", like
myself, who buy and drive Fords.
Yes David, very ignorant!
Chris
66 CJ-5
--- In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> The same reason I'll never have a 8.8 under my pos. Ignorant
maybe, but
> supportive of the destruction of our sport, never.
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeepindog [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:41 AM
> To: az_vjc@y...
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
>
>
> Awww, is someone feeling like an only child??? I guess no one
> else's opinion about his opinion is allowed, right? And as far as
> the name-calling goes, I must say I am proud of you. LOL!
Remember,
> if it wasn't for all of those Ford-buying sphincters, we wouldn't
> have as many 8.8s to swap under our junk!!!
>
> Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha hahaaaaaa! ;)
>
> Lachlan (can't wait to read my emails later...)
>
> In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> > He has the right to his opinion. IF you want to talk about
> supporting
> > the greenies, look at all you assholes who buy fords. Ford is one
> of
> > the largest supporters of greenies.
> > Get a clue and give it a rest guys
> > David
> >
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Mike Baney [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> > Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:09 AM
> > To: suv@c...
> > Cc: Jeep List
> > Subject: [az_vjc] I am amazed!
> >
> >
> > I am very amazed that you support destroying someone's personal
> > property. Placing a sticker on someone's vehicle is defacing
personal
> property, no
> > matter how you look at it. What gives you the right to "tag"
> someone's
> > vehicle because you don't like it, or you THINK he/she should not
> drive
> > it? This act of yours is very immature and I would expect this
out
> of
> > my 2 year old, not an adult.
> >
> > Do you realize that you are WASTING our trees? Do you think
people
> > leave the stickers on their vehicle? I would say they rip them
off
> and
> > throw them out (as your pictures show)! And now you are
SUPPORTING
> the
> > loggers! I thought you all tied yourselves to trees so the
loggers
> > wouldn't cut them down? What a waste of a tree!
> >
> > PLEASE keep "tagging" your vehicles, this just gives us
recreations
> more
> > power to show legislature how irresponsible the "greenies" are.
> >
> > Appalled in Chandler, Arizona
> >
> > Mike Baney
> >
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> > http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> > http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56618 From: Scott Kruize <scottkruize@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:36pm
Subject: RE: World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
Mike,
I like your thinking.
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: Chatfield, Mike [mailto:Mike@A...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 11:06 AM
To: 'az_vjc@yahoogroups.com'
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] World Over-Populated? Was: I'm appalled
>The world is over-populated
>> I personally have issues with famlies that have 7 children in an
>> overpopulated world, but that's another whole arguement
Sorry guys the World IS NOT over-populated. If you believe that, then
you are buying into an "environmentalist" movement so EXTREME that it
wants to see the world population reduced to less than 500 Million - OR
- to put it another way, they want to ELIMINATE (exterminate?) more than
5.7 BILLION people. "The world is over-populated" movement came from
wacko-eco-nazi-extremist and has been proven to be false time and time
again.
If you take everyone in the world and divide up the State of Texas,
every person on earth (including babies only a few months old) would get
just under 1200 sq ft. I think the average family size world-wide is
about 4 children per household.. which means family units that average 6
people. That is 7200 sq feet per family. That is 1/3rd LARGER than the
property my house sits on. Properly configured, my house could easily
handle a family of about 10.
Another way to look at it, if you CROWDED everyone together, averaging 4
people per square yard. (Each person gets a 18" x 18" square, on
average; remember that this includes infants, toddlers and children)
They would fill just under 500 square miles. For comparison, the Phoenix
Urbanized Area in 1990 was 741 square miles. So if you leveled the
Phoenix area, you could put the entire population of the world in less
than 2/3rds of it.
And don't start about there not being enough land to grow the food to
feed everyone either. When our own Government pays farmers NOT to grow
food, and when vast ancient farms in the former Soviet Union remain
un-plowed and un-planted, and when UN satellites are used in some
countries to make sure farmers don't plow and plant in "unauthorized"
fields. The UN is using this so called "over-population" movement to
further their goals of a one-world government.
m2c,
- Mike
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56619 From: bermboy2000 <bermboy@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:38pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
Looks good, I especially like the picture of the custom rockers;P
Scott Maiden
--- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> Hi there,
>
> Please let me know what you think....
>
>
> www.4x4groupbuy.com
>
> Jason
56620 From: jaylalib <jaylalib1@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:47pm
Subject: Re: GroupBuy Website updated
I hope that was your jeeps better side!
--- In az_vjc@y..., "bermboy2000" <bermboy@h...> wrote:
> Looks good, I especially like the picture of the custom rockers;P
>
> Scott Maiden
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "jaylalib" <jaylalib1@c...> wrote:
> > Hi there,
> >
> > Please let me know what you think....
> >
> >
> > www.4x4groupbuy.com
> >
> > Jason
56621 From: Scott Kruize <scottkruize@e...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:50pm
Subject: RE: Re: I am amazed!
David,
By purchasing a "recycled" 8.8 you are not encouraging the purchase of
new Ford's. These Fords are already purchased and paid for. What you can
influence is supply and demand of the "recycled" 8.8s which won't have
any affect on the quantity of new Fords produced. By "recycling" that
8.8 you are already being environmentally conscious.
Besides, you bought a Chevy Trailblazer for your wife. A nice new
minivan would have provided more space for your family and been more
energy efficient. I think you'd look mighty cool cruising around in the
family van ;) <Devil's advocate mode OFF>
Regards,
Scott K
-----Original Message-----
From: David Withers [mailto:dwithers@a...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:55 AM
To: 'jeepindog'; az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
The same reason I'll never have a 8.8 under my pos. Ignorant maybe, but
supportive of the destruction of our sport, never.
-----Original Message-----
From: jeepindog [mailto:jeepindog@y...]
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:41 AM
To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I am amazed!
Awww, is someone feeling like an only child??? I guess no one
else's opinion about his opinion is allowed, right? And as far as
the name-calling goes, I must say I am proud of you. LOL! Remember,
if it wasn't for all of those Ford-buying sphincters, we wouldn't
have as many 8.8s to swap under our junk!!!
Ha ha ha ha ha, ha ha ha hahaaaaaa! ;)
Lachlan (can't wait to read my emails later...)
In az_vjc@y..., "David Withers" <dwithers@a...> wrote:
> He has the right to his opinion. IF you want to talk about
supporting
> the greenies, look at all you assholes who buy fords. Ford is one
of
> the largest supporters of greenies.
> Get a clue and give it a rest guys
> David
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Mike Baney [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 9:09 AM
> To: suv@c...
> Cc: Jeep List
> Subject: [az_vjc] I am amazed!
>
>
> I am very amazed that you support destroying someone's personal
> property. Placing a sticker on someone's vehicle is defacing personal
property, no
> matter how you look at it. What gives you the right to "tag"
someone's
> vehicle because you don't like it, or you THINK he/she should not
drive
> it? This act of yours is very immature and I would expect this out
of
> my 2 year old, not an adult.
>
> Do you realize that you are WASTING our trees? Do you think people
> leave the stickers on their vehicle? I would say they rip them off
and
> throw them out (as your pictures show)! And now you are SUPPORTING
the
> loggers! I thought you all tied yourselves to trees so the loggers
> wouldn't cut them down? What a waste of a tree!
>
> PLEASE keep "tagging" your vehicles, this just gives us recreations
more
> power to show legislature how irresponsible the "greenies" are.
>
> Appalled in Chandler, Arizona
>
> Mike Baney
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! - Official partner of 2002 FIFA World Cup
> http://fifaworldcup.yahoo.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
56622 From: Mitch Woodward <mitchwoodward@h...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: I'm appalled
Joe et all,
I'll definately concede, it's be wasted to try and explain myself in this
forum.
Have a good day all,
Mitch (Tree hugging *******)
----- Original Message -----
From: "Joe-CJ7" <Joe-CJ7@j...>
To: "Jeep Club" <az_vjc@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:29 AM
Subject: RE: [az_vjc] Re: I'm appalled
> Mitch I think you are out numbered on this one. You should concede now.
>
> Joe Kearney
> Joe-CJ7@J...
>
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: jeepin_in_az [mailto:jeepin_in_az@y...]
> Sent: Tuesday, June 18, 2002 8:24 AM
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] Re: I'm appalled
>
> Sorry Mitch, but they have NO RIGHT to destroy someone elses
> PERSONAL property!! It's like someone stealing **** out of your
> Jeep, or vehicle, or house...doesn't matter if they have 1 child and
> drive a Suburban. It is defacing personal property.
>
> Whats wrong with having 7 children? The world is over-populated, but
> there is nothing wrong with procreating, and its fun! If they can
> handle 7 children then let them. JW, how many you got, 6, 7, 8??
> Can you handle it? (I know he can and DOES)
>
>
> Mike Baney, just my views.
>
>
>
> --- In az_vjc@y..., "Mitch Woodward" <mitchwoodward@h...> wrote:
> > MessageScott,
> >
> > I've visited this website. Frankly, if you read their own rules,
> they are targeting soccer moms with hulking suv's, and others who
> don't need to drive such large suv's. They suggest not tagging
> 4x4's, pickups, old trucks, and work vehicles. Read for yourself at
> the end.
> >
> > I personally have issues with famlies that have 7 children in an
> overpopulated world, but that's another whole arguement
> >
> > Mitch
> >
> > Our Rules & Guidlines for Successful and
> > Ethical Big Game SUV Tagging:
> > 1. Only tag the big ones. The Ford Expeditions and Excursions (I
> avoid the Explorers), Chevy or GMC Suburbans, 1500's, 2500's which
> often go by the Yukon and Tahoe name. The Cadillac Escalade, Toyota
> Land Cruiser, Land and Range Rovers and Lexus LX470 are all to be
> considered targets of opportunity. It is best to tag in the affluent
> suburbs where you will notice the Urban Assault Vechicles are never
> dirty. I figure that most people in rural areas are probably using
> them for a functional purpose and therefore don't tag in these areas.
> >
> > 2. Do not tag small SUV's such as any Suburu, Toyota 4Runner, etc.
> Owners of these small and reasonably fuel efficient SUV's keep
> complaining to me when they are tagged. We are after only the
> grotesque and bloated gas guzzling members of the SUV species.
> >
> > 3. Don't tag commercial vehicles, contractors, or any business
> affiliated vehicles. Also no pickup trucks. We have no gripe with
> people who really need these gas-guzzlers. It's the morons who are
> keeping up with the Jones' that raise my back hairs.
> >
> > 4. Don't retag vehicles that you recognize as already tagged (we
> can usually spot left over pieces from the original tagging).
> >
> > 5. We only tag late model vehicles, not some beat up old Suburban
> some poor soul has inherited.
> >
> > 6. Don't tag just because it's a four-wheel drive vehicle. Only the
> really big obnoxious ones.
> >
> >
> > ----- Original Message -----
> > From: Scott Kruize
> > To: suv@c...
> > Cc: AZ_VJC
> > Sent: Monday, June 17, 2002 11:26 PM
> > Subject: [az_vjc] I'm appalled
> >
> >
> > TO: suv@c...
> >
> > Hello,
> >
> > I just came across your website and I'm appalled at your
> behavior. I cannot believe that you advocate criminal behavior such
> as tagging. Who's to say that the owner of a Suburban doesn't have 7
> kids and needs the room? Maybe they run a charity and need the space
> to help the needy. Or just maybe they pickup little old ladies every
> Sunday and take them to church? To target such vehicles without
> discretion is just plain wrong.
> >
> > I AM AN "ENVIRONMENTALIST"! My good friend Stu said it best in
> the following article. I think you should all read it and think about
> the choices you are making. You have no idea what the word means.
> >
> > http://stu-offroad.com/misc/environment.htm
> >
> > Have a good day.
> >
> > Scott Kruize
> > Avondale, AZ
> >
> > PS: I own a gas sipping '01 Honda Civic as my daily driver. My
> Jeep is a recreational vehicle. I am doing my part to help out in a
> manner that produces results.
> >
> > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service.
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
56623 From: zj_lopez <off-road@c...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 2:56pm
Subject: Amazed, World over-populated and appalled
Guys and Gals:
Can we give it a rest?, lighten up people this topic is getting way
to old and tired. I don't mean to preach but aren't we guarantied by
our constitution to "the pursuit of happiness". Now for some people
happiness might be a house in the suburbs, 2.5 kids and a 4x4 Ford
Excursion with a V10 they only use to haul groceries for two miles,
for others it might be a Hybrid vehicle that gets "umpteen" miles to
the gallon, taking the bus to work because they help the environment,
etc. It doesn't matter, people in this country are supposed to be
free, and that means that as long as you don't break the law, you can
do what ever you want. Not everyone needs to like or agree with what
other people do, but they do need to respect them, as I'm sure we
want to be respected. I read a few posts back that people were
assholes because they purchased Fords, fine I'm sure that person has
reasons for feeling that way about Fords and will most likely never
buy one himself, buy does that make a few hundre d thousand people
assholes?, I don't think so. What I personally think a Ford, GM,
Chrysler, or any make is MY opinion, I'm neither right or wrong,
I have my point of view, that probably comes from personal
experience, and that's it, nothing more nothing less.
Anyway, all I'm trying to say is don't get all bent out of shape
trying to prove you are right, just accept that people are entitled
to their opinion, and have the right to be idiots if the so choose,
as long as they don't hurt other people and/or property, why care
about it?.
My two cents.
Jose
56624 From: intertwingled <intertwingled@q...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:07pm
Subject: what will really happen
I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
particular, will find a way.
Tony
--
even the safest course is fraught with peril
56625 From: Roger Tomas <tomasr@a...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:07pm
Subject: Re: what will really happen
I'm waiting for the polar caps to melt to clean out
my garage. The weight shift should keep the Earth
on its rotational axis. ;-)
-Roger
intertwingled wrote:
> I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
> Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
> drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
>
> No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
> burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
> until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
> melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
> rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
> lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
> particular, will find a way.
>
> Tony
56626 From: Chris Krieg <rv6a@m...>
Date: Tue Jun 18, 2002 3:10pm
Subject: Re: what will really happen
Surfs up
> From: "intertwingled" <intertwingled@q...>
> Date: Tue, 18 Jun 2002 15:07:00 -0700
> To: az_vjc@yahoogroups.com
> Subject: [az_vjc] what will really happen
>
>
> I talked to some GreenPeace folks at the entrance to Tempe
> Library the other day. They were very nice people and they
> drove their cars to Tempe to hand out their pamphlets.
>
> No, what will really happen in the end is we will keep
> burning hydrocarbon fuels and heating up the environment
> until a major earth-changing event like a catastrophic
> melt of the polar ice caps and possible shift in earth's
> rotational axis occurs. Then I suppose we shall have learned a
> lesson. =) But even so, I think life, and humans in
> particular, will find a way.
>
> Tony
>
>
> --
> even the safest course is fraught with peril
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>