You can have your national forest back

Originally Posted By: bluealteredBUXH8ME there isn't any reason to become angry here, after it's just a "healthy discusion", remember those words? I don't mind you calling me names either, however my formal training produced a degree as well. I simply decided that i would rather spend my life outdoors rather than designing things indoors.

As for my getting cancer that happened a little over four years ago, it's stage two-b melanoma and yes i am under going treatment for it, perhaps i have not regressed to being that stupid yet.

Ater looking at your profile i do understand your anger at what i have stated, it was of course stupid of me to think that anyone else but a trained biologist could possibly know anything about nature or the cause and effect of speices rise and decline. I guess having spent the last 40+ years actually observing nature first hand six and seven days a week was just stupid of me as well.

You say that we must get along with nature and that of course humans are part of it, when in fact all the federal agencies i have dealt with for over the last twenty years now have given lip service to placing people as equals to "nature" but have in fact done every single thing they could to remove people from the land. Or perhaps ALL of the public land across his nation was just locked up by accident.

If you care to show me how i am wrong i'm sure myself and other forum members would be happy to see it. After you do so i will be happy to show as well the paperwork from years of sitting different forest service oversite committees that i have sat on. I will need some help from our forum members since i haven't done much/any of this in the past. I do have boxs full meeting(s) paperwork proving my point that government agencies that should have nothing to do with where i, (or others) live control every single thing that can or can't be done across our country as far as forests/grasslands/deserts are concerned.

As a biologist you may have even contributed to some of these reports. I look forward to your response, though i realize it will be no problem for an educated person like you to show a stupid person like me i'm wrong.

Im happy to respond, first by pointing out that I called an ideology stupid, not a person. That being said, it was clearly a bad choice of words and will not make excuses. I apologize.

You have written some compelling things even calling me out on specific topics. I find it ironic that you didn't address most, or any of what I wrote. Im sorry you have cancer, I am. Since you're undergoing treatment you must feel the human trait of "prolonging life" is not only an appropriate trait but also one that is beneficial (even though it's unnatural; doesn't exist in nature).

Maybe I'm wrong but it seems that one of your major points was that we should let "nature" do what it wants. I asked and/or insinuated that nature and/or being natural should be defined. You didn't comment on this other than implying that observing nature for 40 years. I freely admit that I'm no expert in land management but I do know this. I can observe pimples for 40 years; that doesn't give me the same training or experience as a dermatologist.

Yesterday I was hunting turkeys on public land. You went out ofof your water to emphasize that ALL public land was locked up. I guess the feds forgot to lock up ALL the gates. I won't comment further on this subject since it's been hashed over and over why the feds have chosen to close or not close areas. It's obviously up for debate as there are many opinions as to if, how, when, and where people have less access to public land. One thing seems to hold true, I can go to public land and still have access whether gates are closed or not. So do you. I have never contributed to any of the reports you eluded to and it sounds like you have been quite involved with oversight committees and the like and I would even agree with your statement about the federal gov't having to much decision making power. I guess my question is this? Who should have the ultimate power of decision making? You? Me? The state? The tribes? The plumber at the local video store? The guy above who says that certain species are worthless so let them die? I'm by no means a big gov't believer but I'm also not a radical who believes that the Fed's are out get us. Not all government decisions and policies are are evil. Far from perfect, but a diabolical plan to hurt Joe Public they are not. You may have boxes of reports that YOU believe are a plot against society but I may look athletes same reports and have a completely different interpretation.

I too have spent years observing wildlife but I don't pretend that I know everything about the rise and fall of every species based on my own observations. Good experience, yes. All encompassing knowledge, no. Again, I shouldn't have used the word stupid in my narrative. Not only because it wasn't fair to you but it also allowed you to use it as a red herring; drawing attention away from several points I made. You seem quick to call me out saying I need to prove this or that yet I'm still wondering how someone with 40 years experience observing nature actually defines nature and what the role of humans are in nature? All I've gotten out of it is that nature should run it's course and that humans are the only species that wants to prolong life. You personally benefit (and everyone else) from this trait but imply that the trait is not natural. Which is it?

Im writing from a cell phone and cannot scroll back to your last post so I can't remember if I've addressed all the points you called me out on. If not, let me know. I definitely won't be asking for other forum members to get behind me. If they want to, great. If not, that's okay. I'm not afraid to stand by my position without calling in the cavalry.
 
A few points on the Bundy Ranch issue. This land was federal land before it became the state of Nevada. It was acquired by the federal government winning the Mexican American war. As federal land the government is required to use it for the public good. As it was intended to be leased out for grazing by contract. This contract was written to put money into our account. So when Bundy refused to pay the lease fee's, He is stealing from our account. Bundy owes you and me this back lease pay. The courts have ruled he is in violation of his contract. Now we Americans have the right to put a lien On all his assets to recover the money he owes us. What the federal government Doesn't have the right to do. Is to hinder Our free speech or to steal the Bundy Assets by force. The federal government Is not in the Armed repossession business. At least it should not be. As senator Reid has used his office in a corrupt manner for decades, Is finally coming out into the open. This is a very good outcome for America. The more Harry Reid's corruption is exposed the less power he can corrupt the nation with. I am not a fan of over grazing, But it is rampant on BLM lease lands. I have no direct Info on the Bundy ranch So can not comment on the Tortious On the ranch lease area. What I do know is the USFWS protects the Raven all across the western BLM. And the Raven is a main cause for the Tortoise decline. Mitigation is the code word you all need to remember. If the Bundy lease is revoked this land can then be used to Mitigate tortious habitat loss elsewhere. Like on property owned by the Reid Crime family.
 
I'm out. If anybody wants to continue the banter with me personally please PM me. I want to go back to viewing and sharing on a little less political and controversial issues. I thank those that interacted and apologize to those I may have offended.
 
BUXH8ME thanks for responding it's great to get up in the morning knowing i have somone to banter with. Don't worry about the melanoma, for the moment i have the upper hand, (at least i think i do).

I will certainly concede that we both are very passionate about this issue as we both have shown that here. I haven't said that the feds "were out to get us" either, however if anyone is willing to take the time to look at all the land use issues from the just say the last 10 years you will have to concude that it's very strange that this came across the country one forest/grassland/desert one unit at a time but ended up with a 99% lock up of public land. Of course the main road(s) are left open, that way the point can be made it's not "really" locked up.

And yes i can and would very much like to show how many government agencies must sign off to just change out a plugged covert in our forest, it's a good call on your part not going there. (Darn!)

Since we both are very involved with land issues, you as your profession and me from years of working on the land in different locations we have each gathered our information and formed our ideas of what should and shouldn't be done. I'll leave it at that.

As i stated awhile back, this started as a simple post to let people know that there is a bill in the house (H.R.4272) that returns control of the public land to the public, that was the post, nothing more.

It is also very clear that that post has touched a very sore spot with many Americans, it is my hope that these 13 pages have gotten people to start thinking about and perhaps doing something about becoming more involved in running our nation. This is my last post on this, thanks everybody.
 
My last post as well. I'm not impressed with the courts have ruled. There is a long list of things where courts have ruled and over turned the will of the American people. All that takes is a sympathetic activist judge, and reminds me of people like Harry Reid saying the law must be enforced and these people are domestic terrorists.

As I understand it, the Homestead Act sometime during the 1870's encouraged people to settle these lands. People just like the Bundy's carved out a living in these areas as a result. The BLM wasn't formed until 1946 although there was a Grazing Act some years before in the 1930's. So, yes, I believe the Bundy's should have been grandfathered in, because they were encouraged to settle and were established at the behest of the Feds under a completely different set of rules.

You guys can have at it from here on.
 
-NV became a state before the Bundys started grazing there.

-The "public land" there now, was federal or territorial land then and was there before Bundys arrived.

-When NV entered into statehood they gave up all rights to federal land

So explain how a private party who never filed claim to any of this land should be grandfathered in???
 
Originally Posted By: phutch30-NV became a state before the Bundys started grazing there.

-The "public land" there now, was federal or territorial land then and was there before Bundys arrived.

-When NV entered into statehood they gave up all rights to federal land

So explain how a private party who never filed claim to any of this land should be grandfathered in???

Explain why he shouldn't.

Or why the tortoise should have use of the land and not anyone else?
 
Originally Posted By: DoubleUpMy last post as well. I'm not impressed with the courts have ruled. There is a long list of things where courts have ruled and over turned the will of the American people. All that takes is a sympathetic activist judge, and reminds me of people like Harry Reid saying the law must be enforced and these people are domestic terrorists.

As I understand it, the Homestead Act sometime during the 1870's encouraged people to settle these lands. People just like the Bundy's carved out a living in these areas as a result. The BLM wasn't formed until 1946 although there was a Grazing Act some years before in the 1930's. So, yes, I believe the Bundy's should have been grandfathered in, because they were encouraged to settle and were established at the behest of the Feds under a completely different set of rules.

You guys can have at it from here on. The courts have ruled On what existing law says. I understand some do not see this as a good thing. But The Rule of law is what we all live by. Getting rid of crooked politicians is the beginning of changing existing law. Hire honest politicians and you might get honest enforcement of better written regulation. Until then no one will be satisfied, Government worker or voting public.
 
Im out to,as to whether or not the feds are out to get us,Watch the fox news story (Enemies of the state),and think again.The scary thing is we have a Marxist for a president and most Americans don't even know it.The wetlands act has been used to destroy peoples lives who's land is not even wetlands.the news stories of bankrupt families because of out of control federal bureaucracies in the pocket of radical environmentalists have been to common.Wake up and smell the sewage.You better hope the UN firearms treaty isn't passed by congress and the senate because Obama will sign it into law faster than you can say,give me your gun.I was at a land use meeting here where two of our government officials stated that this is no free country and the constitution does't mean a thing.Out of over 200 people present I was the only one who had the guts to stand up and ask them to explain what they meant by that.I was shot down and given no answer,and not not one fellow American cared enough to join me in demanding an answer to that chilling statement.I will say one last thing,if you think that putting a whole valley of farmers out of business and destroying their lives over a minnow is justified then your part of the problem.Take the minnow and transplant it somewhere else.The fact is that minnow in California hadn't died because of farming anyway.Oh but just in case the use of the water might harm the minnow we must ruin your lives.Give me a brake.
 
Back
Top