User not logged in - login - register
Home Calendar Books School Tool Photo Gallery Message Boards Users Statistics Advertise Site Info
go to bottom | |
 Message Boards » » The attack on our Public Lands Page [1] 2, Next  
TerdFerguson
All American
5310 Posts
user info
edit post

Really good chance that Lucas Oil executive becomes the next Sec. of the Interior. I'd guess that means there will be a concerted effort to transfer lands to the states (where they will promptly be sold) or the direct sale of lands to energy companies/developers. Add the Bundy crew and all of their sympathizers in congress and, well, this could be a very sad chapter indeed.


ITT keep us posted on the pending destruction of one of the best parts of America.

11/9/2016 9:02:22 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11977 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm pretty sure not. Politicians love the power that comes from owning public lands, so they'll never sell them. What they'll do is lease the land out to be harvested in the most destructive fashion, as tends to happen when governments own something. A logging company would never clear-cut their own lands as they own it and care about being able to make money with it again in the future. But governments never care past the next election, and often not even past the last election, so extraction processes which destroy the land are perfectly acceptable.

11/9/2016 9:52:19 AM

dtownral
All American
20465 Posts
user info
edit post

well that flies in the face of what has already been happening

transfer of federal land to states who then sell to commercial interests is already a thing

11/9/2016 9:54:42 AM

The E Man
Suspended
15268 Posts
user info
edit post

fast destruction as opposed to slow destruction. doesn't make much of a difference.

11/9/2016 10:00:27 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
5310 Posts
user info
edit post

^^^Ok, great theory,

now go read the bills drafted by the "Public Lands Initiative" (Bishop and Chaffetz) which absolutely sells off federal lands, transfers 10s of thousands of acres to the states, "disposes" of certain federal lands, and creates some kind of bullshitt "land exchange."

[Edited on November 9, 2016 at 10:14 AM. Reason : Y'all fast, me slow]

11/9/2016 10:12:19 AM

LoneSnark
All American
11977 Posts
user info
edit post

Well, I'd be excited if they actually did those things. But, since they are just bills, I'm not going to get my hopes up. I doubt they'll get seriously considered. If they do, I doubt they'll pass. If they pass, I expect the various regulatory agencies to drag their feet kicking and screaming.

But, ya know, voters and legislators sometimes surprise you and do things contrary to their nature. I stand by my position that selling off land without strings attached is contrary to the nature of government, but anyone steeped in history can point out times it has most certainly done just that. I prey it succeeds in doing the right thing yet again and sell off all they can. We do have a lot of debt to pay off, after-all.

11/10/2016 12:44:02 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
5310 Posts
user info
edit post

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/621
HR 621. Selling significant acreage throughout the west, mostly BLM land I believe.


https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622
HR 622. Removes all law enforcement capabilities from the dept of the interior. Basically the Cliven Bundy sheriff bill.

1/26/2017 9:15:55 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

if it's not a territory, enclave, or other property specifically for an enumerated power, the federal government shouldn't own it

1/26/2017 9:52:41 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"I prey it succeeds in doing the right thing yet again and sell off all they can. We do have a lot of debt to pay off, after-all."


wat

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 9:54 PM. Reason : ^ of course you're anti-National Parks. jesus. ]

1/26/2017 9:53:20 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

national parks aren't an enumerated power. i think public parks should be handled by the states.

1/26/2017 9:55:23 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

so states have the right to destroy a natural wonder if they see that there's money in it?

1/26/2017 9:57:16 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

classic strawman

1/26/2017 9:59:24 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

please elaborate

1/26/2017 10:00:01 PM

rjrumfel
All American
19805 Posts
user info
edit post

Folks, once it's gone, it's gone. It's bad enough that we're going to be leaving our subsequent generations mountains of trash and mountains of debt. Are we going to take away our national lands too? Sure, a lot of it isn't trapped up in parks but in BLM and such, but still. Once it's gone, it's gone.

1/26/2017 10:02:14 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

most states have state parks. whether or not land is such a "natural wonder" that it necessitates public (govt) ownership, is a matter of opinion, but if there are such lands, i would prefer that they be managed at the lowest level of govt possible. state or local. i'm not a fan of a handful of folks in DC managing land across the 50 states.

1/26/2017 10:05:46 PM

rjrumfel
All American
19805 Posts
user info
edit post

I'm ok with that only because I can have faith in our state's ability to manage them. However look at VA and WVA. They've plundered their mountains for coal. We've seen that our mtns can be a money maker from tourism and have gone with it.

Granted, I don't know if coal exists in our mountains or not.

But what about states that don't have the money to manage these lands?

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:09 PM. Reason : sdfs]

1/26/2017 10:09:30 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

charge admission? i mean, that's essentially what the federal govt does. they charge everyone for admission whether they go or not.

it's like folks think natl parks are free

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:14 PM. Reason : dasf]

1/26/2017 10:14:02 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"i'm not a fan of a handful of folks in DC managing land across the 50 states."


that's not how it works, at all

also, admission is charged to enter multiple national parks

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:22 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2017 10:16:02 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

how do you feel about trump being in charge of the national park system?

1/26/2017 10:23:58 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

how do you feel about finding out that national parks charge an admittance fee?

there are also more checks and balances in play with the federal government owning our national parks as opposed to the states

Trump can't press a button and put all of our federally reserved lands up for sale, and especially not our national parks

1/26/2017 10:28:35 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

unless the parks are completely self-funding, then the fact that some of them charge admission means nothing.

obama closed national parks to try and get a budget passed. are you comfortable with trump wielding that power over our precious natural wonders?

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:37 PM. Reason : d]

1/26/2017 10:31:25 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

you're talking to someone whose grandpa was a park ranger his entire adult life, and whose dad was raised in a state park

during that window of time, said park has lacked in funding and been on the verge of closing multiple times

"tough shit, man" isn't an applicable defense, especially for national parks like the Grand Canyon, Arches National Park, Yellowstone, etc

once they're gone, they're gone. I'm sorry that you're such a callous dude who is seemingly void of emotion, but fuck, man. I doubt you'd be able to go to the Grand Canyon and leave thinking, "meh. let the Arizona state legislature sell off this land for a few bucks"

1/26/2017 10:38:53 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"obama closed national parks to try and get a budget passed. are you comfortable with trump wielding that power over our precious natural wonders?"


seriously?

between this and your, "where was the media the last 8 years" statement in another thread, you're telling on yourself.

that is a completely ignorant statement of the government shutdown/furloughs and how they went down

1/26/2017 10:44:41 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

^^there goes that strawman again

what do you think the state of Arizona would do if they were given ownership of the grand canyon? sell it or keep it as a way to get tourists to come to their shitty state?

^they always close down and publicize the things people get upset over. they make a big deal out of shutting down the national parks because they know it will get attention.

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:50 PM. Reason : asd]

1/26/2017 10:46:33 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11977 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"once they're gone, they're gone. I'm sorry that you're such a callous dude who is seemingly void of emotion, but fuck, man. I doubt you'd be able to go to the Grand Canyon and leave thinking, "meh. let the Arizona state legislature sell off this land for a few bucks""

Ridiculous. If they went on sale, the highest bidder would make it a private nature preserve and charge admission, just like has many times happened when public lands went on sale. Americans are a rich people, and perfectly willing to pay to protect natural treasures.

When people complain that we're selling off national treasures, it is usually lands that are largely unremarkable and few if any actually visit.

1/26/2017 10:48:54 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

are you able to read minds?

how do you know what the highest bidder would want to do with it?

1/26/2017 10:50:45 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"they always close down and publicize the things people get upset over. they make a big deal out of shutting down the national parks because they know it will get attention."


because of the Republicans in the House and Senate, we nearly defaulted and caused a worldwide economic collapse, which is kind of a big deal. much bigger than park employees not getting paid because of the shutdown that they actively pulled for.

1/26/2017 10:54:27 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

it's also funny how these public land discussions always focus on the really popular "natural wonders" and not the millions of acres of empty BLM land

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:55 PM. Reason : ^agreed]

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:55 PM. Reason : i will happily bash republicans too]

1/26/2017 10:54:41 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

have you ever been to a national park?

you agree, yet the "they" in your original statement was directed at the Obama white house

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:57 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2017 10:55:54 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

yes. no plans to return. been to national seashores more. would prefer if local governments managed the national seashores.

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 10:59 PM. Reason : ^ok. it was the republicans fault.]

1/26/2017 10:58:08 PM

dtownral
All American
20465 Posts
user info
edit post

You're a moron.

1/26/2017 11:00:51 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

the fact remains that parks are part of the executive branch and trump could shut the gates if he desired

1/26/2017 11:00:55 PM

moron
All American
30211 Posts
user info
edit post

Local gov would have sold off the national parks long ago if they managed them. They'd be houses and golf courses now.

1/26/2017 11:01:10 PM

synapse
play so hard
53589 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"are you able to read minds?

how do you know what the highest bidder would want to do with it?"


The highest bidder is usually gonna do whatever makes them the most money in return.

Just because some of those buyers might continue to use said lands as a tourist attractions doesn't mean that the land will be properly conserved and maintained for future generations. Profits are the driver, not conservation, and a tourist attraction is probably the best case scenario.

1/26/2017 11:02:06 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

^^are you able to read minds?

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 11:02 PM. Reason : dsaf]

1/26/2017 11:02:13 PM

synapse
play so hard
53589 Posts
user info
edit post

Profits >> conservation.

CREAM

1/26/2017 11:04:27 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"yes. no plans to return. been to national seashores more. would prefer if local governments managed the national seashores."


would you be upset if a special interest group with gobs of money were able to get in the ear of said local government if the special interest group found a way to profit off of the natural resources of national seashores, even if they destroyed it?

[Edited on January 26, 2017 at 11:06 PM. Reason : .]

1/26/2017 11:04:50 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

of course, but that doesn't mean the only way to prevent that is for the fed to run it

1/26/2017 11:08:43 PM

thegoodlife3
All American
33122 Posts
user info
edit post

it kind of does

1/26/2017 11:14:44 PM

NeuseRvrRat
hello Mr. NSA!
33962 Posts
user info
edit post

yeah, i guess you're right

1/26/2017 11:15:39 PM

rjrumfel
All American
19805 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Ridiculous. If they went on sale, the highest bidder would make it a private nature preserve and charge admission, just like has many times happened when public lands went on sale. Americans are a rich people, and perfectly willing to pay to protect natural treasures. "


Let's take a state example to blow this out of the water.

Ever been to Lake Norman? Lake Wylie? Have you seen what developers have done to those lakes? Sure, they're man made, not natural, but for my example that doesn't matter. Jordan Lake is currently a state park. Any idea of how many developers are chomping at the bit to buy the shoreline, slice it up into .5 acre lots and put up mcmansions on them? Hell I'm convinced that if McCrory had won a second term, it would have given him enough time to dismantle Jordan's status as a park and give it to developers.

Why would some private company buy a national park and charge $8 or $20 admission when they can build million dollar homes on them and get a quick cash payout. Or places that might have oil, coal, or any other extractable hydrocarbon would be in danger as well. I'm not talking about our national treasures such as The Grand Canyon or the other big ones.

But hey, I hear there's lots of timber out there in those Redwood forests just going to waste.

1/27/2017 10:33:49 AM

HUR
All American
17731 Posts
user info
edit post

My dream is seeing Oil Rigs off of the Oregon coastline just like the wonderful ones they have slopped off the coast in California as can be seen from anywhere in Orange County

1/27/2017 4:55:39 PM

justinh524
Rowan Hater #1
15622 Posts
user info
edit post

I want them to build a roller coaster in the grand canyon.

Also i want to buy the statue of liberty.

1/27/2017 5:40:04 PM

LoneSnark
All American
11977 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"The highest bidder is usually gonna do whatever makes them the most money in return.

Just because some of those buyers might continue to use said lands as a tourist attractions doesn't mean that the land will be properly conserved and maintained for future generations. Profits are the driver, not conservation, and a tourist attraction is probably the best case scenario."

Don't be silly. You're pretending the Wildlife trusts and other non-profits don't exist. People in it for profit to build shopping malls and golf courses can build them anywhere. They won't waste their money bidding against people desperate to preserve a national treasure which are willing to pay whatever it takes to do so.

Quote :
"Ever been to Lake Norman? Lake Wylie? Have you seen what developers have done to those lakes? Sure, they're man made, not natural, but for my example that doesn't matter"

It does matter. If the lakes are no more special than the other hundreds of lakes already preserved across the nation, then they should fulfill a more valued purpose. Our society deserves lake-front housing too. And we have plenty of lakes to go around.

1/27/2017 8:32:13 PM

TerdFerguson
All American
5310 Posts
user info
edit post

Brace yourselves, an appeal to emotion incoming(but one I tend to agree with):

Quote :
"The issue would be difficult enough to swallow if it were just land and money at stake, but there’s more to it than that: What’s ultimately at risk is our way of life, who we are as a nation, how we live as a people, and what it means to be American—all of which have sprouted from the public soil of our great republic. Public land is the bedrock on which our national mythology is built.

The cowboys, mountain men, and pioneers wouldn’t have existed without public land. Huckleberry Finn is a public-land story and so is Call of the Wild, Lonesome Dove, and A River Runs Through It. “Don’t Fence Me In” and “America the Beautiful” were written about a landscape with equal access for all. Public lands put the wild in the Wild West. Our spirit of exploration and adventure is tethered to the distant horizon and the freedom to cross the ground in between. Without public land, hunting, fishing, hiking, and camping are reduced to commercial transactions and restricted to those who can afford them. Are we still American without room in America to roam?

- See more at: http://sportingclassicsdaily.com/this-land-was-your-land/#sthash.IFIIKhHx.dpuf

.....

And let us be clear: we are being disregarded. The senators and state governments who’ve led us to the brink of calamity know exactly what they’re doing. They’re not stupid, and they’re not misinformed; they haven’t misunderstood the American sentiment—they just don’t care. They don’t care because they’ve sized us up, taken our measure, and deemed us impotent. "

1/28/2017 8:04:45 AM

skywalkr
All American
6694 Posts
user info
edit post

I see far fewer reasons why I would want the federal lands given to the states than kept federal. There is so much more to it than just the big national parks, the federal lands we have are so unique and that anyone can go hunt, camp, hike, and enjoy them is just awesome. I live in a state that hardly has any federal lands and I wish it was the other way around. Normally I am for the states having more power than the federal government but not on this issue. When those lands lose federal control the easier it is for companies to set up mining, drilling, fracking, whatever on them and that is only going to benefit a few and take away from everyone else.

1/28/2017 8:53:54 PM

synapse
play so hard
53589 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"Don't be silly. You're pretending the Wildlife trusts and other non-profits don't exist. People in it for profit to build shopping malls and golf courses can build them anywhere. They won't waste their money bidding against people desperate to preserve a national treasure which are willing to pay whatever it takes to do so. "


Yah. I'm sure some hippie non-profits can outbid ExxonMobil

Also this ain't just about "national treasures"

Quote :
"Our society deserves lake-front housing too"


lololol

1/28/2017 9:00:12 PM

moron
All American
30211 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"are you able to read minds?
"


Look at the malheur protest. They wanted the gov to cede them the land for their private financial benefit without deference to scientific studies on how to manage the land. And many local government officials were on their side because of "identity politic" issues.

If local gov had their way, how many generations before the families sold the land to developers? Then took the profits and complain about brown skinned people mooching off the government?

There's a balance between conservation and economic productivity but I can't believe based on recent history local government can keep conservation in mind enough.

The NCSU forest issue is another good example.

[Edited on January 29, 2017 at 1:14 AM. Reason : ]

1/29/2017 1:13:19 AM

TerdFerguson
All American
5310 Posts
user info
edit post

Quote :
"asoninthehouseI am withdrawing HR 621. I'm a proud gun owner, hunter and love our public lands. The bill would have disposed of small parcels of lands Pres. Clinton identified as serving no public purpose but groups I support and care about fear it sends the wrong message. The bill was originally introduced several years ago. I look forward to working with you. I hear you and HR 621 dies tomorrow. #keepitpublic #tbt"


Toolbag. Now, about that Cliven Bundy sheriff bill.

2/2/2017 9:29:13 AM

dtownral
All American
20465 Posts
user info
edit post

he has no problem leaving HR622 though:
Quote :
"To terminate the law enforcement functions of the Forest Service and the Bureau of Land Management and to provide block grants to States for the enforcement of Federal law on Federal land under the jurisdiction of these agencies, and for other purposes.
[...]"

https://www.congress.gov/bill/115th-congress/house-bill/622/text?r=80

got to help out all the patriotic bundy types

[Edited on February 2, 2017 at 9:58 AM. Reason : link]

2/2/2017 9:57:49 AM

 Message Boards » The Soap Box » The attack on our Public Lands Page [1] 2, Next  
go to top | |
Admin Options : move topic | lock topic

© 2017 by The Wolf Web - All Rights Reserved.
The material located at this site is not endorsed, sponsored or provided by or on behalf of North Carolina State University.
Powered by CrazyWeb v2.37 - our disclaimer.