tnshootist
New member
What is "offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development". ?
Waco and Ruby ridge all over again
- Thread starter GRIZZLYONE
- Start date
rockinbbar
New member
Originally Posted By: tnshootistWhat is "offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development". ?
If they mess up the environment in one area, they will make up for it by creating a "Garden of Eden" in another.
True.
If they mess up the environment in one area, they will make up for it by creating a "Garden of Eden" in another.
True.
Rocky1
New member
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherTransfer the land to the states, how long before it is sold to individuals? Then who will get to hunt on these places? When the land is transferred, the states will soon find out that managing these properties gets expensive. Look at how many people are too lazy to even pick up their own trash, parks departments in cities have their own garbage collection departments. These costs today are covered by all taxpayers, when that cost is dropped to the state level, half the country won't be pitching in the tax dollars they do today.
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
Rocky1
New member
Originally Posted By: rockinbbarOriginally Posted By: tnshootistWhat is "offsite mitigation for impacts from solar development". ?
If they mess up the environment in one area, they will make up for it by creating a "Garden of Eden" in another.
True.
Absolutely correct... it has to be set aside, undeveloped, specific plants/trees/grasses planted, conservation rights established so that it may NEVER be developed.
Have one right across the road from me down here in Florida. Went in and cleared about 3 - 4 thousand acres, and have gone back and planted as stated above, specific species of plants/trees/grasses in place of the existing forest. If I had to guess Long Leaf Pine and Sawgrass top that list in this one. When contractors develop lands in town and need to replace a part of the environment, he sells them XXX acres of the "mitigation area rights" to meet their need, while he retains the title to the land.
If they mess up the environment in one area, they will make up for it by creating a "Garden of Eden" in another.
True.
Absolutely correct... it has to be set aside, undeveloped, specific plants/trees/grasses planted, conservation rights established so that it may NEVER be developed.
Have one right across the road from me down here in Florida. Went in and cleared about 3 - 4 thousand acres, and have gone back and planted as stated above, specific species of plants/trees/grasses in place of the existing forest. If I had to guess Long Leaf Pine and Sawgrass top that list in this one. When contractors develop lands in town and need to replace a part of the environment, he sells them XXX acres of the "mitigation area rights" to meet their need, while he retains the title to the land.
dogcatcher
Active member
Originally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: dogcatcherTransfer the land to the states, how long before it is sold to individuals? Then who will get to hunt on these places? When the land is transferred, the states will soon find out that managing these properties gets expensive. Look at how many people are too lazy to even pick up their own trash, parks departments in cities have their own garbage collection departments. These costs today are covered by all taxpayers, when that cost is dropped to the state level, half the country won't be pitching in the tax dollars they do today.
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
Did I say to sell it to anyone or any company? Nope!
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
Did I say to sell it to anyone or any company? Nope!
Rocky1
New member
Originally Posted By: dogcatcherOriginally Posted By: Rocky1Originally Posted By: dogcatcherTransfer the land to the states, how long before it is sold to individuals? Then who will get to hunt on these places? When the land is transferred, the states will soon find out that managing these properties gets expensive. Look at how many people are too lazy to even pick up their own trash, parks departments in cities have their own garbage collection departments. These costs today are covered by all taxpayers, when that cost is dropped to the state level, half the country won't be pitching in the tax dollars they do today.
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
Did I say to sell it to anyone or any company? Nope!
They don't have to sell the land, all they have to do is sell the mitigation rights. Federal government keeps the land, public land is set aside for ever and ever, and the people cannot use it. The only one's that benefit from it are Harry and Rory, and of course the Chinese. The people are simply screwed in this deal.
I am really to old to enjoy the public lands that much. But if they are transferred to the states, in less than 10 years a lot of you people won't have to be concerned if you can enjoy them. Because quite few of those public lands will have become private lands. Those few places that aren't sold to private investors, will be the chit holes that nobody wants to visit. Our national treasures will become private sanctuaries for the new owners.
As in the Bundy case, some if you act like he has title to the land he has trespassed on for the last 20 years. If that happens, do you think he will let you hunt for free, or spend a week camping on "his" land?
Do you honestly think that anyone will be able to hunt that land when it's a mitigation area for a Solar Energy Farm, and Rory and Harry Reid have lined their pockets at the tax payers' expense???
Did I say to sell it to anyone or any company? Nope!
They don't have to sell the land, all they have to do is sell the mitigation rights. Federal government keeps the land, public land is set aside for ever and ever, and the people cannot use it. The only one's that benefit from it are Harry and Rory, and of course the Chinese. The people are simply screwed in this deal.
Fursniper
Active member
All the Chinese need to do is install trespass solar panels and not pay a lease then they would have the same rights as Bundy.
I am not trying to be funny and make jokes here. Just making a point that the Bundy situation sets a precedence for other land uses to do the same thing. Our public lands should not made available to every different land user at their own discretion. It would create a free-for-all with conflicts that nobody would like. I hope the BLM and the Bundy's can negotiate a resolution to this problem.
I am not trying to be funny and make jokes here. Just making a point that the Bundy situation sets a precedence for other land uses to do the same thing. Our public lands should not made available to every different land user at their own discretion. It would create a free-for-all with conflicts that nobody would like. I hope the BLM and the Bundy's can negotiate a resolution to this problem.
tnshootist
New member
Bundy could use the land he does own for off site mitigation ,wait, that won't help because what he is doing lets the land remain in use without the need to mitigate anything. Would it be best to fake a environmental spot so the rest can be contaminated. Why not let ranchers use the land with grazing control, which ranchers have been imposing upon themselves for decades. Apparently the turtles and natural grass and brush is about the same as nature intended. The arrogance of politicians, environmentalist, feel good liberals, people who will enforce anything as long as they can call it law is wearing thin.
I think that Bundy has brought up a good point..
The State should own the land.. It's within it's states boarders and there is nothing in the constitution for the Federal Government owning or managing land. The people that live there are the best people to take care of that land. No ammount of fancy degree's from some college talking about Enviornmental studies, is going to teach someone more than what a rancher knows from three generations of raising cattle.
The money that he pays for grazing rights (per their charter)was supposed to be cover the cost of fencing and water holes, if they are not doing that, then what is he paying for? That money should go to the county or state and they should handle that.
The Federal Government shouldn't hold the deed to more than half of the state lands. They didn't buy them, and they sure are not paying property tax on them to the states.
The State should own the land.. It's within it's states boarders and there is nothing in the constitution for the Federal Government owning or managing land. The people that live there are the best people to take care of that land. No ammount of fancy degree's from some college talking about Enviornmental studies, is going to teach someone more than what a rancher knows from three generations of raising cattle.
The money that he pays for grazing rights (per their charter)was supposed to be cover the cost of fencing and water holes, if they are not doing that, then what is he paying for? That money should go to the county or state and they should handle that.
The Federal Government shouldn't hold the deed to more than half of the state lands. They didn't buy them, and they sure are not paying property tax on them to the states.
azmastablasta
New member
azmastablasta
New member
Thx Hm.
dogcatcher
Active member
Originally Posted By: Tbone-AZI think that Bundy has brought up a good point..
The State should own the land.. It's within it's states boarders and there is nothing in the constitution for the Federal Government owning or managing land. The people that live there are the best people to take care of that land. No ammount of fancy degree's from some college talking about Enviornmental studies, is going to teach someone more than what a rancher knows from three generations of raising cattle.
The money that he pays for grazing rights (per their charter)was supposed to be cover the cost of fencing and water holes, if they are not doing that, then what is he paying for? That money should go to the county or state and they should handle that.
The Federal Government shouldn't hold the deed to more than half of the state lands. They didn't buy them, and they sure are not paying property tax on them to the states.
The state get PILT for the Federal land within the state. Basically every taxpayer in America pays the property taxes on the BLM land, like it should be, the Federal land belongs to all citizens.
The Nevada voters have consistently sent Reid to Washington, and you trust the same voters to do what is right? I rest my case.
The State should own the land.. It's within it's states boarders and there is nothing in the constitution for the Federal Government owning or managing land. The people that live there are the best people to take care of that land. No ammount of fancy degree's from some college talking about Enviornmental studies, is going to teach someone more than what a rancher knows from three generations of raising cattle.
The money that he pays for grazing rights (per their charter)was supposed to be cover the cost of fencing and water holes, if they are not doing that, then what is he paying for? That money should go to the county or state and they should handle that.
The Federal Government shouldn't hold the deed to more than half of the state lands. They didn't buy them, and they sure are not paying property tax on them to the states.
The state get PILT for the Federal land within the state. Basically every taxpayer in America pays the property taxes on the BLM land, like it should be, the Federal land belongs to all citizens.
The Nevada voters have consistently sent Reid to Washington, and you trust the same voters to do what is right? I rest my case.
Mr. Poppadopalis
New member
I heard Cliven Bundy say on an earlier interview (Hannity) state the he has not seen a BILL from the BLM in 20+ years!
Is he lying??
Also, find the post that talks about Makers & Takers! The TAKERS voted in Reid, Obama, Pelosi etc........
In the very near future the Makers will vote them out!!
Is he lying??
Also, find the post that talks about Makers & Takers! The TAKERS voted in Reid, Obama, Pelosi etc........
In the very near future the Makers will vote them out!!
Longnkrnch
New member
In the very near future the Makers will vote them out!! [/quote]
Dont be so sure. We thought that in 2012. But the ranks of the takers grows with every welfare check.
Rocky1
New member
So what do you suppose would happen if we incited an e-mail campaign telling Congress that it's time to tell BLM and Harry Reid to stand down, to the extent they saw over Second Amendment Rights? Don't you suppose Congress might put a stop to it if they started receiving a hundred or so e-mails a day pointing out abuse by government. Pointing out government promotion of special interest environmental causes on OUR tax dollar. Pointing out that we are all growing very tired of this and the and if BLM continues we're all going to be standing outside the Congressional Chambers next.
Seriously, if we the people can turn the tide simply by raising a bunch of he11 in e-mail, immediately following Sandy Hook, why can't we shut this situation down in Nevada?
Seriously, if we the people can turn the tide simply by raising a bunch of he11 in e-mail, immediately following Sandy Hook, why can't we shut this situation down in Nevada?
dogcatcher
Active member
Originally Posted By: Rocky1So what do you suppose would happen if we incited an e-mail campaign telling Congress that it's time to tell BLM and Harry Reid to stand down, to the extent they saw over Second Amendment Rights? Don't you suppose Congress might put a stop to it if they started receiving a hundred or so e-mails a day pointing out abuse by government. Pointing out government promotion of special interest environmental causes on OUR tax dollar. Pointing out that we are all growing very tired of this and the and if BLM continues we're all going to be standing outside the Congressional Chambers next.
Seriously, if we the people can turn the tide simply by raising a bunch of he11 in e-mail, immediately following Sandy Hook, why can't we shut this situation down in Nevada?
That would probably be one the best ways to get to the bottom of what Reid and son were up to. It would only take a majority of the other Senators to start asking questions before t becomes front page on Fox News.
Seriously, if we the people can turn the tide simply by raising a bunch of he11 in e-mail, immediately following Sandy Hook, why can't we shut this situation down in Nevada?
That would probably be one the best ways to get to the bottom of what Reid and son were up to. It would only take a majority of the other Senators to start asking questions before t becomes front page on Fox News.