NetNews Usenet Archive 1993 #1/NN_1993_1.iso/spool/sci/environm/14245

Internet Message Format | 1993-01-04 | 1.8 KB

Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!nic.umass.edu!dime!chelm.cs.umass.edu!yodaiken
From: [e-mail] (victor yodaiken)
Newsgroups: sci.environment
Subject: Re: Sheep in Organizations
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Date: 4 Jan 93 06:02:31 GMT
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail]
Organization: University of Massachusetts, Amherst
Lines: 30

In article <[e-mail]> [e-mail] (Gil Hardwick) writes:
>There is no "ideological committment" as you suggest; merely a report
>on the facts of the matter as they pertain out there in the real world

Your theory of land ownership is, like any other theory of land ownership,
quite far from a "fact". The fact here is that under US law the government
"owns" much of Alaska.

>in response to your petty and wholly uninformed nit-picking against a
>plea for land justice arising in Alaska. There is plenty of scope for
>a sound and workable compromise, were you willing to pursue it.

The US wilderness has been compromised pretty much out of existence.
Currently, large parts of Alaska remain off limits to development. This
leaves an immensity of acreage in private hands and under the ownership
of native corporations in Alaska itself, not to mention the rest of the
United states. There is no advantage to the general public if we allow
the destruction of what little wilderness is left, and we there are
intangible benefits for most of us otherwise, even if we never visit
our lands up north.  The plea for auctions or giveaways of public
land is a plea for public charity. I'm all for a good social welfare system,
but, I don't believe that it should be implemented by tossing away our
precious remaining wild places.


--


[e-mail]