Luckyrucksack's comments:

on Central Destinations

I don't get how agriculture got dragged into this. We're talking about destination resorts here. So unless you are talking about golf courses as agriculture (see below), you might want to start a new thread on the merits of agriculture elsewhere.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

Okay, so meat is out and agriculture is out. Do you have a hollow tree full of acorns?

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

I would suggest google. Heh.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

I'm sorry, but this is a vapid comment. Do you propose we go back to hunting and gathering? What did you eat for breakfast this morning? Berries that you picked in you back yard?

Sure, there are problems with the food production system, but hating on farming is not going to get you very far.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

I don't know...most of the arguments on this page seem pretty rational to me: pulling water out of the river/aquifer, poor quality jobs, long commutes, destruction of unique environments, burden on infrastructure etc.

And I don't see anyone saying there is *no* legitimate place for destination resorts in Central Oregon. But do we really need *more* golf courses on top of the 23 we already have? (http://www.oregongolf.com/cent/)

As far as I'm concerned, they can build as many of these things out east of town they want. But enough with the golf courses, and I really, really hope they keep their filthy mitts off the Metolius!

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

Scott--I disagree that "there is no real substance to these aversions". While the resorts east of town do not pose much of a threat to anything beside junipers and sagebrush, the ones proposed on the Metolius are going to change that area permanently and dramatically. That is what needs to be focused on now. The Metolius is truly a national treasure that needs to be protected from these rapacious developers.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Central Destinations

It is too late to save Bend from the scourge of destination resorts (AKA sagebrush subdivisions). More important now is saving the Metolius basin from Ponderosa Land and Cattle. The Metolius area is far too precious to give it over to destination resorts.

posted 3 years, 7 months ago
view in context

on Stayin' In

Once again, the commodification of nature is seeping in to people's perception of nature. Nature is not a museum, it is not an amusement park, it is not there to "entertain" us. It should be respected for what it is. I think there should be a fee waiver for people who consider communing with nature a spiritual activity.

posted 4 years ago
view in context

on Stayin' In

Even mentioning Disneyland in this conversation brings to mind everything that is wrong with the over-management of the outdoors. Take for example the Badlands outside of Bend. Just watch--soon as it becomes an official Wilderness Area (TM), there will be fees, RVs, and crowds. You might as well put up a neon sign, "Hey everybody! Look how pristine this is! Come check it out! Only 5 dollars!" Why not just shut yer yappers and leave it alone.

posted 4 years ago
view in context

on Stayin' In

It seems many of the more attractive areas to see, trailheads, etc. now have fees associated with them. I don't want the amenities and I don't want to pay fees. I am also of rather modest income so fees do keep me and my family from enjoying fee areas.

posted 4 years ago
view in context



Become a sponsor