craigdailypress.com

Sage_Sam (Anonymous) says…

Patrick-
Is it even possible for you to make credible and cogent arguements? You addressed none of the points that Rick brought up in his informed and obviously researched letter to the editor or even made any point that wasn't just mindless rhetoric. Name-calling and partisan talking points should be reserved for the television talking heads that don't know nothing about the issues.

You ain't leading son, you're just stepping on toes and making a fool of yourself while the band plays on.

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

Your right, after I read the article I realized I needed to put the last setance back in.

I was on a plane and couldn't change it though. So
my main point was liberals never get this stuff right. Also they will never go unchalleged again. Last but not least it would be nice to push one enough to start writing in once a week. So the public can have a good look at what each has to offer.
Here was the last line I cut and couldn't put back in.

Lets sale those rock heads down stream water for $147 a brl.

So if you would like to pick a topic, go for it. You'll have a 2 week head start. It will always take me at least two to three days to do a good reply. The article up above was one it put in on my way out the door.
Thank you for your thought. Writing articals is a skill that improve with time. And I've got time. So if you want to start and do some too that would be great. I'll take it easy on you for the first three.

rhammel (Anonymous) says…

Patrick,

You are getting too personal. If you want to argue the issues that I raised, fine. But I didn't discuss biofuels or any other uses of water other than the overuse by the lower basin states. Should the Compact be reopened again, what effect would that have on the upper basin states? That is the issue. You should be concerned about what effect the possible loss of water would affect the development of local industries, such as the budding oil shale resources. The deveopment of oil shale takes massiv amounts of water, If lower basin staes manage to increase their water allocation, I strongy question wheather ther will be enough water remaining to fully develop oil shale.

This is not to say that I support oil shale. I strongly oppose it for other environmental reasons. I am using oil shale as a example of what could happen if the Compact were to be reopened.

Rick

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

You got some good points Rick. I've been looking into them all. I was going to submit this article to the paper for Tuesday, but not now. California will never rip up contracts for there only base of water. They could wind up with billions in new taxes. Here is my side of that though but I'm not printing it. I'm moving on to something that might happen for real.

Dear Editor,
I've had a little more time to look into the water issue. I am all for selling a little more water down stream to Cali.. Now before the ranchers get upset listen to what's being floated around in Washington and Oregon States. I'm up in the Northwest now so I've been getting an ear full. These two states are talking about building a pipe line to California to sale them a piece of the Columbia river. Their going to start at 11 cents a gallon and go up. This sounds like the whole Saudi Arabia oil thing all over only this time the states like Washington, Oregon, and yes Colorado are the ones with the rivers of something everyone wants. Oh yea, start at 11 cents and go up every year after that.
Don't get all soft hearted over people laying by pools in their million dollar houses. California is real good at making sure they take from the rich and give to the poor. So the less rich probably wont even notice.

The line I pulled from my Monday letter that I should have added was lets sale those rock heads down stream our water for $147 a barrel. That is an exaggeration but if ranchers could get in on this cash cow there is no telling where the ceiling will end. Just this time make sure it can be renegotiated every year or so. This could be some real easy money for our state and people. Let's say it was set up that each person in a family in Colorado was give a water allotment similar to what we use now. If I choose to send most of mine to California by way of not having a lawn. I would get a $1500 check. That's a vacation right there. All this could be left up to the individual Colorado citizen. We'll call it water revenue for us and a water tax for California. As time passes and Colorado's population increases we raise the price. They use less and we have more and the income stays high. Oh, and since Washington and Oregon are in on it too we can call it free and open trade. All that we have to do is tell them where to send the check.
This is not a crazy McCain idea, it is one we should look into Rick Hammel. If we can get California to tare up the 1927 contract, we'll have em from then on. We finely get to do that horable decision over. Only this time we draw up the terms we want and tell them to leave there terms at home.
Patrick Wayne Germond

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

P.S. Don't act like Obama and start whining over someone else having a different opinion. I am not getting personal. I've asked for your imput and postion. I have done this here on line not infront of the whole town. The article I pulled was a little to much for a nice guy like you who just wanted to particapate. I did not, nor have I done anything that would seriously come to the leavel of public humiliation. I will continue to treat you like a friend I disagree with.

rhammel (Anonymous) says…

Patrick,

Accepted. It looks like we will always disagree on most point; so be it. But remember, the states do not have exclusive rights to the water that flows in their streams and rivers. Some of it belongs to the other states and Mexico. And the master keeper of the water is the Bureau of Reclamation, an agency within the US Departpartment of Interior.

Rick

nikobesti (Anonymous) says…

Patrick, I'll dance with you any time. However, let's base our arguments on some factual information, shall we? You make several statements just in this short letter that are not supported by logic or facts.

1) You claim that:

“I didn't hear any liberals complaining about bio fuel and all the water that it used.”

I think maybe you do too much writing and not enough reading, Patrick. I know of several articles off the top of my head written by “liberal environmentalists” that denounce corn ethanol. Check these out:

http://www.denverpost.com/opinion/ci_…
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/16292
http://www.hcn.org/wotr/17478

When even High Country News is on record against ethanol, you know your statement is way off base.

2) You claim that:

“We didn't hear about the pine beetles killing all the trees because of massive over-growth from lack of harvesting.”

The way I read this, you are inferring that the cause of the pine beetle outbreak is lack of harvesting. Am I correct? If so, please answer this question: How in the heck did our forests get by before humans were around the cut them? Why didn't they all die off due to bark beetles before we started cutting down forests in the west in the 1900s?

3) You claim that:

“In fact, after gas prices have passed $4 a gallon because of heavy restrictions and regulations on drilling, you're out of credibility.”

Answer me this: What heavy restrictions and regulations are you referring to? The COGCC rulemaking JUST passed last week. Gas has gone up despite no corresponding increase in restrictions. Republicans like to place the blame on “liberal environmentalists” for rising gas prices, but this is nothing more than Rove/Limbaugh talking points with no factual evidence to back it up. This assertion is completely unfounded. Tell me when liberal environmentalists have had any political power besides the last few years.

Additionally, areas available for oil and gas development have increased in the last few years in Colorado, not decreased. The Roan Plateau is now open, and the Vermillion Basin soon will be also. What areas have been put off limits since gas prices have gone up?

After you address those points, address this whopper: There are more drill rigs running now in Colorado, Utah, Wyoming, Montana, etc than ever before. Colorado broke a record in 2007 for most Applications for Permit to Drill (APDs) than any other year, and we're on track to break that record in 2008. So again Patrick, if domestic supply is increasing, why aren't prices decreasing?

I do have answers/opinions to these questions, but I'd like you to take a shot first. Then we can start on your other letters. Thanks for dancing. Your turn to lead.

Niko

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

I like the fact of you finding a couple of liberals complaining about bio-feul water use. So I will give you a point there. The timber you are wrong on. A thinner forest has taller trees with thicker bark. You might remeber the first battle victory on your side with the spotted owl. Soon to fallow we couldn't cut anywhere without liberals getting their panties in a bunch. That is all on your side, so point for me.
This next one is too funny. The Roan Plt. plan was shut down about a month or so ago by an enviromentle group. I think the artical was in a Juction paper called “We're right where we thought we'd be.”.

So don't cry, “I'm innocent.” to loud.
No one in their right mind would think the “drill less drill never” and the “don't cut that tree down” group is anything other than liberals.

Listen, I'm for clean water, clean air, and healthy food. Liberals have just taken it to extremes.

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

Hey Ive got one more funny story before I go off the grid for a week. Here it is.

Several years ago treehuggers sued for, and got new laws in the state of Washington. They made it so companies like Weyerhouser and Fiber couldn't log any where near a river. I'm thinking it was like 300 yards. Remeber, the companies owned the land. The hippies with their fogged up minds thought that they had just saved vast portions of timber from being cut evrey 30 years. Well, the companies sold the land since it was worthless to them and housing developers bought it. Now there will never again be trees in most of these areas ever again. The hippies had to drink the bong water that day.

cag81625 (Anonymous) says…

Patrick,

Where did you learn so much about forestry and silviculture?

“Insects and Disease: The mountain pine beetle is the most serious insect pest in mature Rocky Mountain lodgepole pine stands, periodically killing most of the large-diameter trees in a stand [14,18,175]. The beetle primarily attacks trees that are large enough to have sufficient phloem thickness to support the insect larvae [12,14,17,18,19]. Generally trees 14 inches (35.6 cm) and greater in diameter attract the mountain pine beetle, with smaller trees being attacked after these larger trees are killed [12,14]. Infestations continue until the phloem thickness of live trees is no longer sufficient as a food source. Trees smaller than 6 inches (15.2 cm) in diameter are rarely killed [14]. ”

Source: http://www.fs.fed.us/database/feis/pl…

Comparing the pine beetle issues in the N. Rockies lodgepole forests to the issues that affected logging the northwests forests are apples and oranges.

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

This is just sad now. So do you mean your happy we didn't harvest those trees and now there dead? Or do you mean to try and change history. Because it doesn't matter if your source say's something different than mine about bugs. The treehuggers shut down and slowed logging to the point we all just lost it all. Everyone knows what side did that. Nobody is going to be able to get anything out of that resource now. No tax dollars no jobs no nothing. It will more than likely just burn. Good policy guys. What do you call it? Don't use it we want to lose it.

nikobesti (Anonymous) says…

Patrick: I'm not saying environmentalists don't hold up timber harvests, and I'm not even saying I agree with them. I think harvest is warranted in some situations. What I am saying is that your point is off base pinning the beetle problem on lack of harvest. I would agree that a clear-cut forest won't have any bark beetles, and that the dead timber should be used in some situations. However, forests have been healthy before humans starting cutting a lot of trees. There's no logic to your radical argument. There are many other more important factors (Hint: It starts with “F” and has an “I” and “R” and “E” in it. You might have heard of it even though your letters never mention it except for that it's used by hippies to light a bong.)

Still waiting for your response about how high energy prices are Dem's fault. This is the theme of every one of your letters. Can you flesh that out for us? Also very curious about what you think about the supply and demand issues I raised. You continually contend that our problems will go away (or at least get better) with more domestic drilling. Can you use some factual information to show how that will happen?

I appreciate your opinions and like that people are thinking about these issues. If you want to frame a legitimate argument, you shouldn't just repeat what you hear without providing some critical thought and analysis.

Patrick (Anonymous) says…

Good point, I will get into that deeper later latter. The high energy and domsitic drilling.
I would like to talk to you more in about a 4 days to a week. I am a firm believer that two people can make enough good points to each other that afterwords they both will have better postions and more info.. Even if they don't change their whole mind .
Many, many people feel the way you do and many feel the way I do. If things where really being sorted out in more forums and descusions like ours I feel the posistions wouldn't be so so far apart. I want to thank you for taking the time to sort some of it out among us few. Most people don't care enough to do that . Have a good week and we'll talk again.

P.S. I have to admit Ted K. just did a good job. I'll give your side another point.

cag81625 (Anonymous) says…

Patrick,

As far as the lodgepole and the beetles go, cutting and burning are good things. First off, many areas are being cut, but one of the biggest bottlenecks is the dearth of mills. That is slowly changing. There is a new mill (I'm told) being built to process dead lodgepole in Kremmling as we speak. Many folks are trying to build a market for the “blue stain” wood of beetle killed trees (it is pretty cool stuff) to make it more economical to cut and mill. Alternatively, lodgepole is a fire-dependent species and fire is actually necessary to open up their cones so the seeds can be released. Fire will have to occur over many acres if the lodgepole forests are to return someday. But, no matter what, a whole state's worth of lodgepole cannot be cut before nature does what it will do.

grannyrett (Anonymous) says…

The Indians would burn the brush. It kept the forest clean, as well as keeping the bugs in control. Fire has been considered an enemy for so long that our forests have become overgrown and now, any fire will be a major catrostrophic. The forest service and BLM has done this country a great disservice in not allowing cutting and clearing of the forests. Let's hope that after the beetles have killed off much of the forests of this state that they will have learned how to manage better.

irishbrat (Anonymous) says…

However, I was once told that fire is good for the forest- So I looked it up-this is a clip from an encyclopedia:

“Some species of pines, e.g. Bishop Pine, need fire to regenerate and their populations slowly decline under fire suppression regimes”