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.
Of which the federal department of interior is begging to not take on more land since it cannot manage the current workload. Federal government isn't designed to tax everyone just so they can manage large parks. Wrong role for the feds.
When you can't even figure out that there was no "land grab" and that it was never private land none of what you're saying has much credibility. Quit parroting Bundy. There's no increase in land being managed because it was simply a classification change. The federal government's role is not to serve the interests of the wealthy and industry.
When you can't even figure out that there was no "land grab" and that it was never private land none of what you're saying has much credibility. Quit parroting Bundy. There's no increase in land being managed because it was simply a classification change. The federal government's role is not to serve the interests of the wealthy and industry.
The rest of the thread has moved over to issue of miss management. Many agencies manage, or try to manage, federal lands. The fact that these agencies are under funded by Obama when he was in is now somehow a republican issue.
The states can manage these lands much more effectively at lesser cost but democrats can't stand losing the control. Look at how well the EPA is managing abandoned mines. Obama's push to call more federal lands a monument was an attempt to increase any federal oversight vs. Privatizing or even allowing cities and states from managing federal land.
The federal agencies are billions of dollars short and incompetent to manage. Guess none of the earlier links was read.
You'll follow this man no matter what. He could advocate drinking poisoned Kool Aid and you'd raise your cup.
So if someone told you, 'we have to pass it to find out what is in it", you'd have no problem?
Talk about Kool aid.
Hey, "the world is a more tranquil place". Bet you believed that too.
Preserving land for parks is different than taking land from the state to tie it up to supress the economy, destroy rural America according to UN agenda 21 or simply some insidious green energy plan to centralize populations, reduce woodsmoke and otherwise muck with the cultural diversity to meet a socialist agenda of dependancy on the feds.
Land in Maine for example used for generations for hunting, trapping and timber would fall under political and cultural vagaries of new administrations and be run by bureaucrats who never even saw the land in question. In Nj for example open land may now ban hunting depending on where the funds to purchase the land originated. An obscure law causing disruption and confusion.
To make sweeping judgement of trumps move is typical liberal extremism, ignoring the moiddle ground. Some of the reversals are justified, perhaps some may be arguable. It is not all bad.
The rest of the thread has moved over to issue of miss management. Many agencies manage, or try to manage, federal lands. The fact that these agencies are under funded by Obama when he was in is now somehow a republican issue.
The states can manage these lands much more effectively at lesser cost but democrats can't stand losing the control. Look at how well the EPA is managing abandoned mines. Obama's push to call more federal lands a monument was an attempt to increase any federal oversight vs. Privatizing or even allowing cities and states from managing federal land.
The federal agencies are billions of dollars short and incompetent to manage. Guess none of the earlier links was read.
No you have switched to making ridiculous claims about other subjects when it was repeatedly shown your claims of a land grab were nonsense.
Now why don't you prove your claims here. Provide proof the states can "better" manage these lands at "lesser cost." Be specific.
Now as for your statements here: the EPA's private contractor accidentally released those toxins that the mining companies left behind improperly sealed. The mine was responsible for that mess, they created the toxic mess, they left it improperly contained. So how on earth would opening lands up to mining companies improve things?
Since federal lands belong to all U.S. citizens why on earth should cities and states manage them for their own interests? Why should Americans lose these lands to private corporations and people?
Incompetent to manage? I'm a forester. I know plenty about land management in the northeast. If you go to lands managed by a TIMO or REIT you're going to find the most abusively "managed" (exploited) timberland there is. You'd be lucky to find any large trees. A friend of mine interned with a big private REIT in Maine and NH and they were literally driving around their lands looking for trees to cut because they couldn't find any of merchantable size. Now contrast that with the national forests in the region. You'll find plenty of large diameter trees, quality trees, wildlife habitat, rare species of plants.
Your idea of "good" management is to let industry and private individuals rape and pillage our natural resources for short term gain with no thought or care about future generations.
My understanding is this is primarily about the land in Utah. If Utah wants to give up protected federal lands, it's their loss really. I would not want Washington to give up the Olympic National Park but we are a blue state. Let Utah turn it into a carnival park and fill it with billboards, their loss, not mine.
No, it is more our common loss than Utah's gain.
The Bear's Ears is an area that's very hard to access, and rich in ancient artifacts as it was once sacred ground to the earliest inhabitants.
Unfortunately, it's also a place where slob ranchers like the Bundys can shove their livestock on illegally if they are willing to round them up on horseback. The access roads are so poor anyone in a truck can't go seize the illegal cattle.
And any determined greedy tomb raider can also go in by horse to plunder at will, getting rich by selling our most ancient heritage to the highest bidder on the black market.
Utah does not protect its lands like a Federal Monument protects ours. Since Trump lost in Utah, all he wants is a little more approval there, and he's willing to give away some of our most precious ancient history to get it.
I just talked about this today with a friend who voted for him and is as conservative as it gets, but is also an avid desert rat. He loves the red rock desert far more than anyone else I've ever known; his mission in life is to get as much of it photographed as he can before he dies.
And he hates the idea of giving the area to Utah. He went into a fierce rant as soon as I asked his thoughts.
And given his past, if I was a tomb robber out there, I would go out of my way to avoid him; he could make things very unpleasant for those guys in all kinds of ways.
I know some other desert rats, and they are not the most stable or well socially adjusted people, for sure. He's the only one I definitely would not want to lock horns with out there in the big lonesome.
The federal agencies are billions of dollars short and incompetent to manage. Guess none of the earlier links was read.
You got it backwards, it is the states that lack the resources and skill to manage that land, and as a result it it is deeded to them they always resort to selling it to the highest bidder in order to relieve themselves of the responsibility. Just providing fire protection on BLM land could bankrupt small states.
You really need to spend some time in a state like Nevada, maybe if you did you would learn to appreciate being able to drive or hike for hours without a 'no trespassing sign' or camping in the middle of nowhere without getting run off in the middle of the night. That land is precious and it's ours..it's yours and it's mine, for God's sake if we don't do anything else right I hope we have the good sense to hold on to it
You got it backwards, it is the states that lack the resources and skill to manage that land, and as a result it it is deeded to them they always resort to selling it to the highest bidder in order to relieve themselves of the responsibility. Just providing fire protection on BLM land could bankrupt small states.
You really need to spend some time in a state like Nevada, maybe if you did you would learn to appreciate being able to drive or hike for hours without a 'no trespassing sign' or camping in the middle of nowhere without getting run off in the middle of the night. That land is precious and it's ours..it's yours and it's mine, for God's sake if we don't do anything else right I hope we have the good sense to hold on to it
Multiple linked Articles that were in earlier posts highlighted the shortfall of various federal agencies that manage or try managing federal lands. Here is another link. Page 5 discusses examples of bud t shortfalls in the department of interior and US fire service on trying to manage lands currently.
With over half of the US forestry service's budget being spent on " wildlife management", resource stewardship has taken a back seat. The federal government would still send grants to the states to manage conveyed federal land but they wouldn't need nearly the fund and the results would be better.
We are the rightful owners. It's federal public lands. The states never had any legal claims to those lands. He's going to turn it over to be raped and pillaged by industry.
Actually, it's to be properly used by the private sector. This is We, The People, not We, The Government.
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.
