Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Trump National monuments

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Trump National monuments

    looks like Trump saving more federal $$$

    the federal government owns enough land, yes?
    the states and the feds have enough federal monuments, land, etc yes?
    doesn't he want to give the states the the decision on how to use these lands? --which is more logical?
    ..the US is in huge debt--the feds need to stop wasting money on crap like ''acquiring'' more land

    https://www.yahoo.com/news/federal-o...-politics.html

    if there is a previous thread on this, please advise

  • #2
    From the article:

    Twenty-seven national monuments, mostly in the West, face the curtailing or elimination of protections put in place over the past two decades by presidents from both parties, the Interior Department said.
    Try almost entirely...

    The Federal government doesn't own much land East of the Mississippi except where it has for military bases, long existing national parks (100+ years), and other federal installations. In the West the feds practically own entire states like Nevada (81%), Arizona (43%), Utah (66%), or Alaska (62%). Almost half of California is federal land.

    Most of this acreage is nothing but raw land. There's nothing particularly special about it. Here in Arizona, land like most of Coronado National Forest, Sitgreaves National Forest, or the Sierra Ancha Wilderness is grass land, undifferentiated forest, or just rugged terrain.
    There is absolutely no reason for the feds to own any of that land.

    In fact, selling it off and using the cash to pay down the national debt would be the best use. In private hands it could be put to actual use, generate tax revenue, and add to the GDP rather than sit fallow or at most be used for occasional logging or as range land.

    Comment


    • #3
      I am in favor of States owning public land but I am in total disagreement with the sale of public land to private parties. My objection can best be seen in the following:
      http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/p...e75569547.html

      When public access land is sold to private parties the access to this land may and can be restricted which then denies the use of the land to those who are hunters, atv riders, snowmobilers, horseback riders, hikers and the general public. I enjoy the use of public land for my enjoyment and if that land is sold it can and possibly curtail my use of that land.

      http://www.idahosnow.org/idaho-state...sociation-news
      Too Much To Do Too Little Time

      Comment


      • #4
        Originally posted by FTCS View Post
        I am in favor of States owning public land but I am in total disagreement with the sale of public land to private parties. My objection can best be seen in the following:
        http://www.idahostatesman.com/news/p...e75569547.html

        When public access land is sold to private parties the access to this land may and can be restricted which then denies the use of the land to those who are hunters, atv riders, snowmobilers, horseback riders, hikers and the general public. I enjoy the use of public land for my enjoyment and if that land is sold it can and possibly curtail my use of that land.

        http://www.idahosnow.org/idaho-state...sociation-news
        From the original article:

        “History is clear on what will happen if our national public lands are given to the state,” said Brad Brooks, The Wilderness Society’s deputy regional director, based in Boise. “They’re almost certain to end up in hands that will lock the public out.”
        Got news for Brad, and you... Federal land is largely locked up and inaccessible to the public. For example, here in Arizona the Sierra Ancha Wilderness east of Phoenix... camping prohibited. Vehicular travel, except on a few dirt roads, is prohibited. Basically, this land is off limits to the public for any and all purposes.

        http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildV...D=551&tab=Area Management#regs

        National Forests are the same way. Camping is usually restricted to designated campgrounds, vehicle use to established roads. Logging and other economic activity is severely restricted or prohibited.

        Most BLM land is used by ranchers for cattle. This land is no more accessible or inaccessible whether it is publically or privately owned. The difference is that if it were privately owned, it would generally be managed better by the owner(s) who would have a stake in its care than by the BLM.
        Lately, environmental groups have tried to outbid ranchers for leases on this land too. They have, in some cases, gotten control of such land to the detriment of both it and wildlife in the region where this occurs. Why? The environmentalist groups do nothing with this land. They let the watering holes, salt licks, and other cattle support structures go fallow and into ruin. These are used as much or more by indigenous wildlife as they are by cattle so the wildlife population collapses too. So, by remaining in public hands, much of the BLM land is at risk of poor management and being made worse, rather than better.

        In fact, overall, the federal government is not a particularly good steward of most of the land they own. Putting it in private or state hands would in many cases improve rather than lower the quality of that land.

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
          From the original article:
          Got news for Brad, and you... Federal land is largely locked up and inaccessible to the public. For example, here in Arizona the Sierra Ancha Wilderness east of Phoenix... camping prohibited. Vehicular travel, except on a few dirt roads, is prohibited. Basically, this land is off limits to the public for any and all purposes.

          http://www.wilderness.net/NWPS/wildV...D=551&tab=Area Management#regs

          National Forests are the same way. Camping is usually restricted to designated campgrounds, vehicle use to established roads. Logging and other economic activity is severely restricted or prohibited.

          Most BLM land is used by ranchers for cattle. This land is no more accessible or inaccessible whether it is publically or privately owned. The difference is that if it were privately owned, it would generally be managed better by the owner(s) who would have a stake in its care than by the BLM.
          Lately, environmental groups have tried to outbid ranchers for leases on this land too. They have, in some cases, gotten control of such land to the detriment of both it and wildlife in the region where this occurs. Why? The environmentalist groups do nothing with this land. They let the watering holes, salt licks, and other cattle support structures go fallow and into ruin. These are used as much or more by indigenous wildlife as they are by cattle so the wildlife population collapses too. So, by remaining in public hands, much of the BLM land is at risk of poor management and being made worse, rather than better.

          In fact, overall, the federal government is not a particularly good steward of most of the land they own. Putting it in private or state hands would in many cases improve rather than lower the quality of that land.
          I have to disagree with you on some of your points and agree on others.
          To your point that the federal government is not a particularly good steward of most of the land they own, I tend to agree and feel that the state would be a better steward of the land but disagree that it should be sold to private parties. Once the land is owned by a private party they can restrict the access to that land, which does happen and will continue to happen. Here in my part of Idaho those that utilize the land for recreation and grazing have a good relationship with the BLM and they do listen to our and rancher concerns.
          As far as National Forrest land here in this State we do not seem to have the problems you put forth. We do not seem to have a problem camping in non-designated campgrounds. Our clubs have many "camp-outs" that are not in designated campground. Sure, it is dry camping without any facilities but that isn't a problem. We also work with the US Forest Service in helping maintain designated OHV trails. We have an excellent lobbyist that looks after the interest of all outdoor recreational groups here in this state at the Federal and State level. In addition you might be interested in the following link if you want to have your voice heard
          http://www.arra-access.com/

          So I'm basically saying that I agree that individual States having control over public land; However I do not want that land sold to private parties.
          Too Much To Do Too Little Time

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
            From the article:



            Try almost entirely...

            The Federal government doesn't own much land East of the Mississippi except where it has for military bases, long existing national parks (100+ years), and other federal installations. In the West the feds practically own entire states like Nevada (81%), Arizona (43%), Utah (66%), or Alaska (62%). Almost half of California is federal land.

            Most of this acreage is nothing but raw land. There's nothing particularly special about it. Here in Arizona, land like most of Coronado National Forest, Sitgreaves National Forest, or the Sierra Ancha Wilderness is grass land, undifferentiated forest, or just rugged terrain.
            There is absolutely no reason for the feds to own any of that land.

            In fact, selling it off and using the cash to pay down the national debt would be the best use. In private hands it could be put to actual use, generate tax revenue, and add to the GDP rather than sit fallow or at most be used for occasional logging or as range land.
            Can an individual purchase land, and build a house, inside those national forests? I saw numerous houses in the Mormon Lake/Stoneman Lake area. I thought that was in a national forest?

            Comment


            • #7
              Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
              Can an individual purchase land, and build a house, inside those national forests? I saw numerous houses in the Mormon Lake/Stoneman Lake area. I thought that was in a national forest?
              Quite likely that it was either homesteaded or done through a mineral claim...

              I'm gonna keep a eye on this, could be some good land to stake a claim on...
              Credo quia absurdum.


              Quantum mechanics describes nature as absurd from the point of view of common sense. And yet it fully agrees with experiment. So I hope you can accept nature as She is - absurd! - Richard Feynman

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by phil74501 View Post
                Can an individual purchase land, and build a house, inside those national forests? I saw numerous houses in the Mormon Lake/Stoneman Lake area. I thought that was in a national forest?
                The Mormon lake area up towards Flagstaff is mixed private / public land. The houses are on private land in that area. That shows up on detailed maps of the area, but really doesn't on say, Google Maps.

                Comment


                • #9
                  how much land do states and the feds need?
                  so what if they sell it to private parties?
                  isn't there enough federal and state land for recreational activities?

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    Originally posted by Moulin View Post
                    how much land do states and the feds need?
                    so what if they sell it to private parties?
                    isn't there enough federal and state land for recreational activities?
                    In simple terms NO
                    Too Much To Do Too Little Time

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by T. A. Gardner View Post
                      The Mormon lake area up towards Flagstaff is mixed private / public land. The houses are on private land in that area. That shows up on detailed maps of the area, but really doesn't on say, Google Maps.
                      I've looked at it on Google Maps. It just shows one big National Forest. I wondered how they did that...there were a lot of houses in that area. Loved it there though, wish I owned one of those houses.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        This is Coconino National Forest (south half). Mormon lake is near the top center of the map. The white areas are privately owned.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          The expansion into the Old West virtually all land was owned by the Feds.

                          A lot of what the Feds hold today is held because its worthless.
                          Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Presumably he'll want some Federal Land to build the Arc de Trump. Down overlooking the Mexican border?
                            Human history becomes more and more a race between education and catastrophe (H G Wells)
                            Mit der Dummheit kaempfen Goetter selbst vergebens (Friedrich von Schiller)

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by MarkV View Post
                              Presumably he'll want some Federal Land to build the Arc de Trump. Down overlooking the Mexican border?
                              We already have one.
                              Any man can hold his place when the bands play and women throw flowers; it is when the enemy presses close and metal shears through the ranks that one can acertain which are soldiers, and which are not.

                              Comment

                              Latest Topics

                              Collapse

                              Working...
                              X