From: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Subject: Re: KILL THE BEARTOOTHS!
Reply-To: jimiii@nimbus.com (Jim Warford)
Organization: Nimbus Technology, Santa Clara, CA USA
Date: Fri, 20 Nov 1992 21:47:48 GMT

In article <gf2y_oa00WB60mm0sI@andrew.cmu.edu> "John B. Randolph" <jr4h+@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Hello folks,
>Well, if you want to kill and destroy a beautiful region adjacent to
>Yellowstone - *do not act now*.  However, if enviro-raping isn't your
>bag, and have a minute, write a letter (by November 23 - eeeck) or postcard
>to
>     Curtis W. Bates, Forest Supervisor
>     Custer Nat'l Forest
>     POB 2556
>     Billings, MT  59103
>
>and try to encourage Mr Bates to push for the 'no leasing' alternative.
>The Beartooth region of Custer National Forest is a spectacular area NE of
>Yellowstone.  It is the largest expanse of alpine tundra in the lower 48.
>It is an incredibly beautiful place - I thought more so than Yellowstone
>itself.  The forest service, in their less-than-infinite wisdom wants to
>open 177,000 acres to oil and gas development.

Have you by chance been to that area.  If memory serves me right, it is 
adjacent to an area which has been raped by developers who bought large
ranches, subdivided them and then sold them in 5-10 acre plots to all
the Californians with big money.  Are you one of those proud landowners
perchance?

>Take a minute out and try to stop this - it will cost only 29 cents -
>substantially less than the dynamite and caps that you'd need to later
>on to halt this...

     Does anybody else find it kind of ironic that even though we are the
largest per capita consumers of petroleum and natural gas based 
products in the world we are the first to scream "NOT IN MY BACKYARD"?
     If we all were to send in our applications and try to procur the 
leases and then refuse to sell the rights to the large oil companies
unless they sign an agreement to explore and/or drill in a manner 
which does the least damage (minumum roads, no garbage dumps, replacement
of topsoil, replanting, etc.) to the environment it would be more
beneficial.  Face it!  Now or in the future, ALL areas with crude
oil or natural gas are going to be exploited.  Prevention of development
is a short term win because when the pumps in the mideast start 
pumping sand instead of oil all areas of the US which contain oil
will be developed.  Do you actually believe that we won't postphone
running out of oil until the last possible drop is squeezed from the
earth?  Do you believe that the kids growing up now who are so self-
centered that they will kill someone because they told them not to
lean against their car or they bumped into them in the mall or they
happen to want your car or bomber jacket will give a shit about the
environment when we are running out of oil?  I think promoting 
ecologically friendly and safe development of oil reserves now will
prevent total rape of the land in another 30 years.
     Gaining control of the leases would have the side effect of allowing
us to reinvest the money in buying private lands and donating them
to groups like ducks unlimited or the nature conservatory.  Maybe it
is time to start a new newsgroup "rec.get.control.of.the.oil.leases"
which would have the charter of publishing all upcoming timber and
oil leases and information on where to send your application to be
eligible for the leases.

--jimiii (not an enviro-raper but rather an enviro-realist)


-- 
Faster Horses
Younger Women
Older Whiskey
More Money!
Newsgroups: rec.backcountry,sci.environment,talk.environment,alt.wolves