Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
What does this earmark for the Dept. of the Interior in the $1.1 Trillion omnibus bill do to keep these lands in their natural state? Please be specific as the natural gas companies, under GW, took huge advantage of public lands held by the feds for their own profit.
This is what I saw:
"...In a last-ditch lame duck push, eco-lobbyists have been furiously pressuring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pass a monstrous 327-page omnibus government lands bill crammed with more than 120 separate measures to lock up vast swaths of wilderness areas..."
Is there natural gas and/or mineral prospecting and logging going on in declared wilderness areas that I don't know about?
Funny, I've walked all over "grabbed" federal lands, cut wood, hunted, camped, fished and generally felt more free than I ever have anywhere else in the country.
I've also seen state lands sold to the highest bidder to fund a bloated, corrupt and "live for the moment" state government. I'll take federal control of public lands over state any time, thank you. What matters most to me is that they remain open AND preserved in their natural state.
Yeah, but did you kill a mouse while doing that walking? Did you step in a 'wetlands' pool?
If you did, you'd be in prison AND broke.
Open and preserved in their natural state.......wildfires come to mind?
Yeah, but did you kill a mouse while doing that walking? Did you step in a 'wetlands' pool?
If you did, you'd be in prison AND broke.
Open and preserved in their natural state.......wildfires come to mind?
No, but once I killed an elk. I've also trapped beaver in wilderness wetland pools. And all legal.... even wildlife refuges here in UT will allow hunting on a limited basis. As for back East though I couldn't say (nor would I want to). Likewise, I have no particular aversion to wildfires, which are a yearly occurance here.
"...In a last-ditch lame duck push, eco-lobbyists have been furiously pressuring Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid, D-Nev., to pass a monstrous 327-page omnibus government lands bill crammed with more than 120 separate measures to lock up vast swaths of wilderness areas..."
Is there natural gas and/or mineral prospecting and logging going on in declared wilderness areas that I don't know about?
Must be. Guess it is time to read up. I think you'll be surprised. (hint: "fracking")
I think this is part of the problem, that so many people automatically assume that once the Dept. of Interior takes land, be it public or private, that it automatically becomes "hands off". That is simply not the case. Now as to the "official" classification of "wilderness areas" I cannot say.
What this federal land grab does, in a nutshell, is further erode private property rights of individuals, and of states, so that the federal government can take those mineral and water rights for itself. There was a huge land grab under Clinton. Under GW commercial leases were sold/developed (Halliburton). And yet another grab under the Obama administration.
It used to be that the federal government only controlled "navigatible waterways". If this inclusion into the $1.1 Trillion omnibus is the same as was discussed six months ago, it gives our federal government rights to ALL water. That is right all water in the USA. Do you have a stock pond on your property? The government wants the rights to that water. It will even own the rights to the rainwater that falls on your roof, it is that inclusive of a "grab".
Make no mistake, this is not about "saving the environement" this is about money and controll. Follow the money.
Ask why, if Obama budgeted $12 Billion for the Dept. of Interior for 2010, and then gave another $3 Billion through the recovery act, why the push in this $1.1 Trillion omnibus legislation? Do you really think it is motivated by altruism?
So, chide me all you want for pointing it out. But if you think I don't enjoy the "wilderness" every bit as much as you just because I started this thread, you are greatly mistaken.
When most of the lands of a state are under federal control because the feds discontinued the homestead act and patents on mining claims, as far as I'm concerned, they have a duty to enable use of the resources on said lands: timber, minerals, wildlife, etc. In a sustainable manner of course (I want neither industry nor the rural cleansing agenda driven environmental lobby controlling the land management process). I like wilderness, but the "Wilderness" designation of federal lands puts it off limits to most uses, and limits access such that other uses are near impossible (i.e., it's not practical to pack a moose or bear or such that one has hunted when one can't even use a horse to pull it out of the woods, and we're talking possibly big distances in the Western states). It used to be, the National Parks were devoted to the "preservation" mindset while National Forests and BLM lands were managed with the "conservation" mindset...but some "preservationists" aren't happy with what that and want it all. There's areas designated "Wilderness" in Vermont, some of which have clear signs of human settlement and agriculture from sometimes a mere 50 years ago; bridges and roads were demolished or allowed to rot away after being designated as such.
And aren't many of those lands to which you refer under the control of the Dept. of the Interior? So, how is this going to make matters any better? No, it is the stealing of private and state public property by the federal government, yet again.
Did any of y'all actually download the pdf at the link in the OP and read it? Or, are you just answering off the cuff, without following this topic previous to this thread?
You ever been to the Grand Canyon? How about the Great Smokey Mountains National Park? Or, Yosemite or Yellowstone? Ever seen Independence Hall in Philadelphia? What about Ford's Theater? Or, the Gateway Arch in St. Louis? Ever seen the Grand Teton's or Big Bend? Ever climbed Little Round Top at Gettysburg, or stood in the old Confederate trenches above the Burnside Bridge at Antietam? Ever driven on an interstate or flown out of an airport?
You know why those things are there for your enjoyment? Because of some other "land grabs" in the past. All of those things were set aside, taken from someone else, to preserve them for future posterity.
Was it bad thing to do that? Would it be better if Gettysburg was now row upon row of suburban McMansion's? Would you be happier if no land was ever seized to build a road?
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
