I don;t care much for either choice for Governer. Are either one of them better or worse for off road stuff?
Governor
- Thread starter Romer
- Start date
treerootCO
Rising Sun Member
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2005
- Messages
- 5,440
I only see my governor around 110 
MDH33
Hard Core 4+
I would not vote for Beauprez. He's all about more development and leasing all of our public lands to oil and gas companies. To me, that means more land that will be off limits.
sno bored
Trail Ready
Romer, I think you did a pretty good job a few years ago.
I have often wondered if I did run for office if I would get votes just because of my last name. I don't want to be in Politics though.
wesintl
Moderator
I haven't decided either...
I'm not under the assumption that leasing public lands to gas and oil companies means it's off limits. If drilling means less need for foreign product, then i'm all for it.
Ritter
http://www.ritterforgovernor.com/issuesSP.cfm
As part of my vision for Colorado in the 21st century, I will be a strong participant in the process that follows the work of the Roadless Area Review Task Force. The task force will recommend which of the more than 4 million federal roadless forest lands in Colorado should remain protected, and I will advocate for a balanced, common-sense approach to land management.
Beauprez
http://bobbeauprez.com/issues/bob_beauprez_on_hunting.asp
It's also critically important that Colorado's next Governor is willing to fight for public access to our public lands. We're blessed to have so m
I'm not under the assumption that leasing public lands to gas and oil companies means it's off limits. If drilling means less need for foreign product, then i'm all for it.
Ritter
http://www.ritterforgovernor.com/issuesSP.cfm
As part of my vision for Colorado in the 21st century, I will be a strong participant in the process that follows the work of the Roadless Area Review Task Force. The task force will recommend which of the more than 4 million federal roadless forest lands in Colorado should remain protected, and I will advocate for a balanced, common-sense approach to land management.
Beauprez
http://bobbeauprez.com/issues/bob_beauprez_on_hunting.asp
It's also critically important that Colorado's next Governor is willing to fight for public access to our public lands. We're blessed to have so m
Red_Chili
Hard Core 4+
I do see oil and gas as sometimes being mutually exclusive to off roading. Witness, for instance, Iron Chest. We are really lucky they returned it to its former condition, but many of our roads go to mines and other exploration and can be closed at a whim, like Gillespie for instance.
It's pretty depressing. On one hand, you have a party that is beholden to special interests (not our special interest!) and will shut down public access if they see a reason to, in order to further their idealistic values and if their supporters want it.
Then you have the Democrat party...,
ditto.
It's pretty depressing. On one hand, you have a party that is beholden to special interests (not our special interest!) and will shut down public access if they see a reason to, in order to further their idealistic values and if their supporters want it.
Then you have the Democrat party...,
ditto.
Seldom Seen
Hard Core 4+
wesintl said:
I would agree with you IF it was worth the cost. But the geologists for the state DNR have estimated, at the current rate of consumption, *IF* all the oil under Colorado could be extracted and refined into gasoline, it would amount to a 1 week supply.
None of the extraction business operating in this state are Colorado owned and most are foreign owned. The extraction industry pays billions of $$ a year, in royalties, to the state and (mostly) federal government. Royalties paid by the extraction companies is put into the state and federal general funds. By the time it trickles down into local land managers budgets it doesn't cover the cost of the improvements (read roads) that land managers build to allow the extraction industry access to the mineral resources. There is no guarantee that any roads created will remain open for recreation. There is millions$$ of backlog of maintenance on roads that are open for recreational use. What little money land managers have would be put to better use maintaining and reconnecting Colorado's recreational roads and trails.
In 1988 recreational tourism surpassed extraction as CO's #1 industry, and has seen steady sustainable growth ever since. The $$$'s contributed directly to CO's economy and The full time year round jobs created by, the recreational use of Arapaho/Roosevelt National forest alone is more than the extraction industries contribution from the entire state. Add in the recreation/tourism $$ from CO's other National Forests and you can see CO's greatest natural resource is above ground and not beneath it.
Red_Chili
Hard Core 4+
As long as we can actually access it.
Which depends of course on our ability to articulate its worth, as Brian has admirably done.
Which depends of course on our ability to articulate its worth, as Brian has admirably done.
Red_Chili
Hard Core 4+
Be sure to perouse this linkie:
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/BlueBook2006.pdf
It has arguments for and against each ballot measure. This is IMPORTANT! For instance, let's say you want to churn the courts and throw the bums out through term limits imposed by Amendment 40.
OK, fair enough. But beginning in 2009, whoever is governor gets to appoint a supermajority in the Supreme and Appellate courts of the state, because it so happens that the existing judges will run out of term at the same time. The same thing happens ten years later, too.
Did you mean to vote for that unintended consequence? I guess it depends on who you hope will be governor during those times...
So do your homework, boys and girls, and vote intelligently. Don't make me sneak over to your place and let the air out of your tires for not voting, now...
http://www.state.co.us/gov_dir/leg_dir/lcsstaff/Bluebook/BlueBook2006.pdf
It has arguments for and against each ballot measure. This is IMPORTANT! For instance, let's say you want to churn the courts and throw the bums out through term limits imposed by Amendment 40.
OK, fair enough. But beginning in 2009, whoever is governor gets to appoint a supermajority in the Supreme and Appellate courts of the state, because it so happens that the existing judges will run out of term at the same time. The same thing happens ten years later, too.
Did you mean to vote for that unintended consequence? I guess it depends on who you hope will be governor during those times...
So do your homework, boys and girls, and vote intelligently. Don't make me sneak over to your place and let the air out of your tires for not voting, now...