Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Shrinking federal land control  (Read 198 times)

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16356
  • Gender: Female
Shrinking federal land control
« on: December 04, 2017, 12:05:44 pm »
For those of you who don't live in the west, you may not realize how much of our land is controlled by the feds.  Some of it is military land.  The rest is monuments, wilderness, etc.  There are a lot of things worth protecting, but the federal land grabs are out of hand.  As an example, the area in which I recreate the most has been taken by the feds and made a wilderness area.  Over 67,000 acres of the mountains is now off limits to anything but foot and horse traffic.  The fire roads and logging roads are no longer maintained, so the land has become pretty much inaccessible.  why?  What is the point of making so much land unusable for both industry and recreation.  There is nothing special about it. 

https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_land_ownership_by_state

The monuments in Utah that Trump intends to shrink have things worth protecting, but those things do not cover the many 1000s of acres grabbed by the feds.  There is no reason to keep people from most of that land, and more important, no reason to put it off limits for the state to use as they see fit. 
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Dallasbeek

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #1 on: December 04, 2017, 01:14:30 pm »
That may be why, when I tavel through your area from Portland to Bend, I frequently see forest fires off to one side or the other.  There's a buildup of tender and fire trucks can't go there to fight small fires before they rage out of control.  Plus I see whole mountain sides of dead pines because of pine bark beetles, and nothing can be done with those logs, but they make fine firewood to feed those forest firest.  Disgusting.
"Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no laws, no court can save it." - Judge Learned Hand, 1944

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16356
  • Gender: Female
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #2 on: December 04, 2017, 01:30:20 pm »
Quote
here's a buildup of tender and fire trucks can't go there to fight small fires before they rage out of control.  Plus I see whole mountain sides of dead pines because of pine bark beetles, and nothing can be done with those logs, but they make fine firewood to feed those forest firest.  Disgusting.

That's a large part of it and general logging restrictions.  Most of our mills have closed.  We import our timber from Canada now and our forests burn.

The big fire we had in Sept. was just now declared 100% contained and that only because of the rain.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline MikeyN.C.

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #3 on: December 04, 2017, 01:44:36 pm »
Was it Obama's executive privilege that gave power for land grabs.
Where was the outrage?

Offline Michael Bush

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16401
  • Gender: Male
    • bushfarms.com
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #4 on: December 04, 2017, 02:48:52 pm »
>Was it Obama's executive privilege that gave power for land grabs.
>Where was the outrage?

It's ok if the Democrats do it.  Didn't you know that?
My website:  bushfarms.com/bees.htm en espanol: bushfarms.com/es_bees.htm  auf deutsche: bushfarms.com/de_bees.htm
My book:  ThePracticalBeekeeper.com
-------------------
"Everything works if you let it."--James "Big Boy" Medlin

Offline Dallasbeek

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #5 on: December 04, 2017, 02:53:58 pm »
Outrage just results in busted blood vessels in the brain.  Political power is what's needed.  When the left took over the Sierra Club and such and there was no countervailing, organized group opposing Greenpeace and company, those groups had the federal agencies under their control. 

Hunters and fishermen raise a lot more money for real conservation than the pressure groups, but they aren't organized in a way to offset the left's voice with the agencies.
"Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no laws, no court can save it." - Judge Learned Hand, 1944

Offline paus

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 217
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land controlExactly
« Reply #6 on: December 04, 2017, 03:05:56 pm »
Dallas I totally agree, we need a voice.. I have thought about one thing that might even the media and make news coverage almost honest and fair.  I pray for a group to raise a dollar here and a dollar there and use it to buy one of the major networks.  Then there could be NEWS anchors instead of propaganda spreaders.  There are very few "shows" that are suitable, for my principals and beliefs.

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #7 on: December 04, 2017, 09:06:47 pm »
Who owned this land prior to the feds grabbing it?  Is the government smoking out more Indian reservations?  Must be another pipe line in the making or just the drilling or oil.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline Dallasbeek

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #8 on: December 04, 2017, 09:48:59 pm »
 :angry:
Who owned this land prior to the feds grabbing it?  Is the government smoking out more Indian reservations?  Must be another pipe line in the making or just the drilling or oil.

I don't know about this particular land, but the Bureau of Land Management owns huge tracts, as does the US Forest Service.  It's leased out for grazing and the govt. used to sell the timber to be harvested for lumber.  Then the liberals get it labeled wilderness and monuments and such and it can't be managed and it's closed to all but hikers and that sort, who don't even pay to access yhe land.  I'm sure Kathy will correct me if I've misstated anything.

Only in Texas are we relatively free from this kind of nonsense.  When Texas joined the Union, it was told " keep your land and your debt; we want neither," so there's not a lot of federally owned land in Texas.  In much of the West, the ovewhelming majority of land is owned by the federal government.

I guess I've overlooked the Indian land, which is mostly owned by the tribes, but " managed" by the Bureau of Indian Affairs.  If you want to know how that works to the Indians' benefit, just ask any native American how he feels about the BIA and its management of his affairs.  Be prepared for a lengthy discussion.
"Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no laws, no court can save it." - Judge Learned Hand, 1944

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16356
  • Gender: Female
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #9 on: December 04, 2017, 11:02:53 pm »
Ace if you look at that link I posted you can see how much of the west the feds control.  There's no good reason for it except to keep people from using it.  While there are places that are so special they do need protection, my mountain is not among them.  It's just a mountain with a lot of snow and trees on it.  Trees that are a crop we could harvest, but now are left to burn.
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline Redlands Okie

  • New Bee
  • *
  • Posts: 1
  • Gender: Male
Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2017, 08:28:41 am »
Trees are being harvested in Canada and used in the USA because their is profit in it. There are a huge areas of forestry operations in the USA and a few more acres are not going to change the lumber situation or prices long term here. Same for oil and most other natural resources. Keep in mind that lots of these resources once harvested are usually shipped over seas for use out of country. Large old growth timber is a good example. Once the land is trashed by industry it takes decades at the minimum to recover, not likely to happen in ones lifetime, if ever. I grew up in Texas and spent a large part of my life there. You best have lots of money so you can lease land for hunting, camping, hiking, etc. In the scheme of things there is very little public use land. There is no need for a few large companies to plunder whats left just to provide a few temporary jobs for a few people at modest wages at best. One of the best reasons to live or travel and spend time and money in many western states are just for the reasons listed in this article. Letting greed for some short term low wage jobs ruin what is there is just silly at best.

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2017, 08:48:31 am »
Ace if you look at that link I posted you can see how much of the west the feds control.

I don't know but maybe I am looking at the wrong link.

Quote
The federal government owned around 23.5 million fewer acres in 2013 than in 1990, a 3.8 percent decrease.

Obama got elected in 2008.  What are we complaining about?
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #12 on: December 05, 2017, 08:52:11 am »
my mountain is not among them.  It's just a mountain with a lot of snow and trees on it.  Trees that are a crop we could harvest, but now are left to burn.

If it is your mountain why can't you harvest it?
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16356
  • Gender: Female
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #13 on: December 05, 2017, 11:59:16 am »
Quote
Trees are being harvested in Canada and used in the USA because their is profit in it. There are a huge areas of forestry operations in the USA and a few more acres are not going to change the lumber situation or prices long term here. Same for oil and most other natural resources. Keep in mind that lots of these resources once harvested are usually shipped over seas for use out of country. Large old growth timber is a good example. Once the land is trashed by industry it takes decades at the minimum to recover, not likely to happen in ones lifetime, if ever. I grew up in Texas and spent a large part of my life there. You best have lots of money so you can lease land for hunting, camping, hiking, etc. In the scheme of things there is very little public use land. There is no need for a few large companies to plunder whats left just to provide a few temporary jobs for a few people at modest wages at best. One of the best reasons to live or travel and spend time and money in many western states are just for the reasons listed in this article. Letting greed for some short term low wage jobs ruin what is there is just silly at best.


Lol.  There is so much wrong with this I am not sure where to start. 

There are large areas of forestry in parts of the US.  True.  A few more acres will not make a difference.  False.  Oregon used to be prime logging territory.  We still have the trees, but we don't have the logging except on those places that private companies have been able to hold.  This means that the industry that used to support 1000s of people in logging and wood products is pretty much gone.  Most of the lumber mills are gone and raw materials are now exported more often than refined in the US.  That's jobs gone.  That's money gone.  those were real living wage jobs.

You are correct about trying to find land for hunting and recreation.  One of the reasons is that the feds have put more and more land off limits.  Where you see a reduction in ownership of federal land is in the sale of military bases, but when it comes to rec land, the feds not only are owning it, but designating it in ways that keep it off limits to recreational use.  A wilderness area ends up being useless to the public. 

Yes, there are spectacular places that are worth protecting.  There are many other places put off limits or restricted that are not special at all.  As I pointed out, the Mt Hood wilderness area is one of those places.  It's just forest.  Now it's forest that no one can enjoy unless they hike in, and since there is no maintenance of roads and no access except on foot, it soon will be inaccessible even on foot....until it burns down. Hikers will still give it a go and when they are lost in there none of us will be able to get in and find them.

The use of resources is not greed, it is using what we have available.  How stupid is it to import what we have our own land?  Why make ourselves intentionally dependant on others when we have our own? 
They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline MikeyN.C.

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 189
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #14 on: December 05, 2017, 12:01:51 pm »
Ace,
I thought that obama did the land grab before he left.

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #15 on: December 05, 2017, 02:30:23 pm »
Why make ourselves intentionally dependant on others when we have our own?
This comes from you Kathy?  There is nothing that we can't make here with the exceptions of coffee and a few tropical fruits.  It costs less in the short term to import what we want.  What isn't taken into consideration is who will be able to afford what we now have in the future if companies are allowed to go outside our boarders to make stuff and suffer no consequences to bring it in and sell it.
Grabbing land as you call it may be part of the green effect.  Keeping industry out and importing lowers our carbon foot print.  It doesn't lower the worlds CO2 emissions but it lowers ours.
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline Acebird

  • Galactic Bee
  • ******
  • Posts: 3408
  • Gender: Male
  • Practicing non intervention beekeeping
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #16 on: December 05, 2017, 02:32:55 pm »
Ace,
I thought that obama did the land grab before he left.

I am still trying to figure out where they are grabbing the land from.  All of the US is owned by someone and it has for a long time so what is there to grab?
Brian Cardinal
Just do it

Offline kathyp

  • Universal Bee
  • *******
  • Posts: 16356
  • Gender: Female
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #17 on: December 05, 2017, 02:39:11 pm »
Quote
I am still trying to figure out where they are grabbing the land from.  All of the US is owned by someone and it has for a long time so what is their to grab?

most of the time they are taking land that is either unused state land or BLM land.  BLM is supposed to manage land for use.  When the feds take land and designate it as a monument or wilderness, they effectively take that land out of any use.  To be fair, a lot of states were happy to have land managed by BLM because it saved them money.  What they did not consider is that BLM is a federal agency and so the feds can end up doing as they please with the land. 

They are so divorced from their own interests that even when their own security and that of their children is finally compromised, they do not seek to avert the danger themselves but cross their arms and wait for the nation as a whole to come to their aid. Yet as utterly as they sacrifice their own free will, they are no fonder of obedience than anyone else. They submit, it is true, to the whims of a clerk, but no sooner is force removed than they are glad to defy the law as a defeated enemy. Thus one finds them ever wavering between servitude and license.
Alexis de Tocqueville

Offline jvalentour

  • House Bee
  • **
  • Posts: 416
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #18 on: December 05, 2017, 09:54:43 pm »
Ace,
You will attack the source, so there are many many others, I just took the first few article to pop up on Google. 
Special interest and FOB (Friends of Barry) profit from the land grabs.  Easy to research if you are inclined.


Did Sen. Harry Reid drive the standoff at the Bundy ranch for personal ...
www.politifact.com/.../2014/.../did-sen-harry-reid-drive-standoff-bundy-ranch-pers/

Harry Reid: The Desert Fox Of Corruption | Stock News & Stock Market ...
https://www.investors.com/politics/editorials/bundy-ranch-harry-reid-rory-reid/

Grifty Tea Party Chick Will Put Ethics Complaint In Harry Reid's ...
https://wonkette.com/.../grifty-tea-party-chick-will-put-ethics-complaint-in-harry-reids..

The politically connected are loaned money to buy a highway intersection, suddenly all the land around the intersection becomes park land.  The connected then build hotels, restaurants, profit centers with the newly formed park on their tiny piece of property. 

Swamp creatures.  Sad.  MAGA

Offline Dallasbeek

  • Super Bee
  • *****
  • Posts: 1876
  • Gender: Male
Re: Shrinking federal land control
« Reply #19 on: December 06, 2017, 07:48:43 pm »
Good thread, Kathy.  Very informative.
"Liberty lives in the hearts of men and women; when it dies there, no constitution, no laws, no court can save it." - Judge Learned Hand, 1944