This effects you too!!!

[The Bee!!]

This was posted by the Back Country Horseman. But, it effects everyone that is riding a one horse power or more....


https://psmag.com/land-grab-duplicity-d22e9328ce1#.kkut7o32k

Teri

[Chupaca]

It is a tough one. There is no more land to be found on this planet. We are limited to what we have and as the population grows and life expectancy grows we will someday run out of space. Some places are already filling in bays and rivers to create more land but at what costs. Politics and greed aside this is a human problem to think about...:dontknow:

[Gray Ghost]

The issue has been going on for some time and is more complicated than the article would suggest. 13 of the western states contain 93% of all federal lands and the government has been increasing its ownership of federal lands through the designation of National Monuments. There are valid points on both sides of the arguments over that, but it does impact the people who live in those areas and the amount of regulations that come down on them when the feds come to town.

The map in this article is a good illustration: https://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/govbeat/wp/2013/10/15/almost-half-the-west-is-federally-owned-now-some-states-want-their-land-back/

And the AMA disagreed with the recent designation of three new monuments because of its impact on motorcyclists: http://www.americanmotorcyclist.com/news/rightsnews/16-02-12/*****_s_monument_designations_penalize_off-road_enthusiasts.aspx

[BajaRon]

A very biased and myoptic view of the situation. Really, who is grabbing what? Everything that the radical left doesn't like is always perpetrated by 'the radical right' making it automatically 'BAD'. It is interesting that our founding fathers were 'Radical Right'.

It really boils down to who you trust more. The government ('We are here to help'). Or 'We the people', as prescribed in our Constitution.

Nor does this article mention that all National Monuments, National Parks and other 'Federal Public Lands' are being transferred to the United Nations. I wonder why they left that out?

[PrairieSpyder]

A very biased and myoptic view of the situation. Really, who is grabbing what? Everything that the radical left doesn't like is always perpetrated by 'the radical right' making it automatically 'BAD'. It is interesting that our founding fathers were 'Radical Right'.

It really boils down to who you trust more. The government ('We are here to help'). Or 'We the people', as prescribed in our Constitution.

Nor does this article mention that all National Monuments, National Parks and other 'Federal Public Lands' are being transferred to the United Nations. I wonder why they left that out?


:agree: The "land grabbers" are the federal government wanting to extend their control over land adjacent to the national parks & monuments.

[Bob Denman]

Yup! :agree: also...
But this is a very polarizing topic: perhaps it's best to just let it pass, before things start getting FUGLY in here over it. nojoke

[ARtraveler]

From Baja Ron: "Nor does this article mention that all National Monuments, National Parks and other 'Federal Public Lands' are being transferred to the United Nations. I wonder why they left that out?"



:yikes: :yikes::yikes::yikes: Your kidding, right? How did I miss not hearing about that?

[JerryB]

Hi akspyderman,

Re: How did I miss not hearing about that?

I'm thinking I missed that memo also.

And I am very sure that most of the people on here in the USA know about the crazies who tried to 'take over' in southeastern oregon earlier this year. You really want those loony-toons in charge of 'your' land?

Jerry Baumchen

[Bob Denman]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WGKU8awk7Vg&feature=player_detailpage

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

What gets me are the guys who say the Federal Government should give the lands BACK to the states. That misses two very important facts. One, the land never has belonged to the states. The western states were created from land the Federal Government has owned ever since they drove the native Americans off of it. All private and state owned land inside the states came from Federal lands, not vice versa. And second, if the Feds should return the land then they should return it to native Americans who "owned" it before the Feds did. I wonder how many of the advocates for turning the land to the states would like that idea.

Another thing to think about. If the land were turned over to the states, the states would be responsible for managing it, including funding the cost of fighting wildfires. That alone could bankrupt many states. The states would be under pressure to sell off the land. Now tell me, what mega corp landowner welcomes hunters, fishermen, hikers, and all manner of folks to use their land?

Yes, there are issues with how well some of the Federal lands are being managed. Some issues, such as excessive restrictions on logging, are imposed by the eastern public who don't understand the problems, but turning the land over to the states isn't the answer.

[kep-up]

I say, Screw the feds! The federal gummint is already too big and becoming uncontrollable. Let the states control the open land within their borders.
As far as fires go? Let'em burn!! That is nature's way to clear stuff out and for new growth. The only reason to control a forest fire is to protect the rich folks investments who have bought wooded land from the gummint and built a big fancy house on it. Same thing with the outer banks on the east coast. God put them there to protect the mainland from storms. I guess it's cool to build a 2 million dollar house on a sand bank, but if yo can afford to build it, then yo should be able to rebuild it every 5 years when a hurricane destroys it.
I could go on, but I'm getting too excited.

[wyliec]

Yup! :agree: also...
But this is a very polarizing topic: perhaps it's best to just let it pass, before things start getting FUGLY in here over it. nojoke

Hey, if Lamont doesn't care, let it fly, or is that let it burn.

[BajaRon]

From Baja Ron: "Nor does this article mention that all National Monuments, National Parks and other 'Federal Public Lands' are being transferred to the United Nations. I wonder why they left that out?"



:yikes: :yikes::yikes::yikes: Your kidding, right? How did I miss not hearing about that?

There is plenty of information on this. But you're right. This has been very quietly implemented over a long period of time. Very few people seem to know anything about it. I would say that by the time people realize what is being done, it will be too late to do anything about it.

This is just one article.

http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA341.html (http://www.nationalcenter.org/NPA341.html)

[IdahoMtnSpyder]

As far as fires go? Let'em burn!! That is nature's way to clear stuff out and for new growth. The only reason to control a forest fire is to protect the rich folks investments who have bought wooded land from the gummint and built a big fancy house on it.
Official policy is let them burn in the wilderness areas until and unless structures outside of the wilderness are threatened. The problem with letting them burn in National Forests is fires were suppressed for so many decades that the fuel level has reached levels where fires literally sterilize the earth. There is one area in central Idaho where even weeds did not come back for close to ten years. And the public screams when fires are allowed to burn uncontrollably. That's what happened when Yellowstone burned, but it was healthy for the park. The Forest Service has known for years now that the policy established after the 1910 fire in N Idaho to put fires out as quickly as possible was mistaken, but reversing the situation is difficult.

It's not just rich folks who build in and near forests, and no, it is not smart to do so.

The issue is not as simple as you would like it to be.

[BajaRon]

Official policy is let them burn in the wilderness areas until and unless structures outside of the wilderness are threatened. The problem with letting them burn in National Forests is fires were suppressed for so many decades that the fuel level has reached levels where fires literally sterilize the earth. There is one area in central Idaho where even weeds did not come back for close to ten years. And the public screams when fires are allowed to burn uncontrollably. That's what happened when Yellowstone burned, but it was healthy for the park. The Forest Service has known for years now that the policy established after the 1910 fire in N Idaho to put fires out as quickly as possible was mistaken, but reversing the situation is difficult.

It's not just rich folks who build in and near forests, and no, it is not smart to do so.

The issue is not as simple as you would like it to be.

Now that is definitely a can of worms. I was in Yellowstone during the fires. Very few people know what really happened there. You have 2 conflicting agendas. The government, and the public. The trick is to get the public to think you're fulfilling their agenda while actually accomplishing your own. So far it's worked almost every time.

[Spyder_Cowgirl]

Here in North Texas, the Feds are in the process of trying to take land away from owners along the Red River -- these are farming and ranching families that have owned the land, maintained it, farmed / ranched on it, and paid taxes on it for (in many cases) more than a century. Now the Feds come along and say ... sorry, that land is now "public domain" -- BULL$%^&!

The locals have pushed back, and have the state, as well as congressmen behind them. So far, no land has actually been taken .... we shall see, though.

All the best .... Ann