Print

Print


Quoting Skip King <[log in to unmask]>:

> My point, with regard to ski areas, is that they DO contribute
> considerably

Fine.  If they are contributing reasonably then we leave them alone...

> You're correct in noting that the cost of overhead is the ski area's
> responsibility, and part of that overhead is FS fees if they happen to
> be on FS land.  I wasn't arguing otherwise.

Yeah, but the forest service guy was. And so, as I originally stated, his
argument was illogical.

> >#3 Federal Support, perhaps including increased taxes, unfairly burdens
> >those who never use them (for recreational or business purposes).  This
> is utter tihsllub b/c as an American citizen the forests are always yours
> and you have the right to enjoy them, whether you wish to do so or not.
> Think about public schools, police departments, fire departments, etc.  Same
> is true at the Federal level.  You may never require them once in your life
> but you still pay for them.  Part of the dues of citizenship.  Plus everyone
> DOES benefit from National Forests b/c they (a) provide lumber for our houses
> and paper, (b) minerals and other mined substances for lord knows what, and
> (c) put oxygen into the air we breath.  They also may provide breeding
> grounds for the fish weeat.
>
>
>> Nonsense on that last.  Most o' them fish wuz stocked at taxpayer
>> expense,
>> for the benefit of the few who fish.

Sure fish is stocked, but take a look at the life cycles of non-stocked
Atlantic Salmon and the Pacific varieties.  Do they spend time in NF waters?  I
have no idea (hence my "may").  But if they do, chalk up another one for me.

>  Don't have a problem with that, by
> the way.  I agree that there are things we do as a nation for the
> greater
> good;

And one of them is to properly steward our forests.  The "Plus..." bit was an
additional, argument.  Perhaps we should compare them to the Smithsonian.  Not
everyone visits the Smithsonian (though they should), nevertheless, from a
philisophical standpoint it is reasonable to support them via our taxes.
Consider our forests another set of "exhibits" if you will...

> I'm more interested in this from a philosophical standpoint, Ben; as I
> previously noted, I'm not necessarily a supporter of the fee system.
> But I
> see its logic.  Roger may well be right that the fees collected on
> logging and mining are a gimme for
> those industries.

Demonstration fees are not logical.  Period.  Even if you divorce for-profit
use by private companies from the funding equation.  In that hypothetical
instance federal taxes would be the logical answer.

> (roads help maintain
> forests and provide access in firefighting)

No there's a bs argument if I ever saw one!  I forgive you b/c you don't live
out West, but even with roads firefighters have great difficulty fighting
fires.  In fact given the role of helicopters and airplanes, I doubt roads make
all too much of a difference.  In order for them do really make a huge impact,
I suspect they'd have to put road in every square mile of NF land.  Speaking of
which there are many more miles of road in the National Forests than the entire
US Interstate system...

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html