National Grasslands

[drayweb]

http://bismarcktribune.com/news/sta...cle_8ba93cb7-bd48-5e7b-a9e5-cdf74e9607f0.html

��

[h=1]Judge rules against ND in dispute over grasslands[/h]

• AMY DALRYMPLE Bismarck Tribune
• Jun 30, 2017

• ​
• ​
• ​

Section line roads may not be constructed through the Little Missouri National Grasslands, according to a recent court opinion.
LAUREN DONOVAN, TRIBUNE

A federal judge ruled against North Dakota this week in a legal battle over whether roads can be built in the protected Little Missouri National Grasslands.
U.S. District Court Judge Daniel Hovland dismissed lawsuits brought by the state and four western North Dakota counties, saying they waited too long to bring their claims against the federal government.

North Dakota and four counties, McKenzie, Slope, Golden Valley and Billings, filed claims in 2012, arguing they have the right to build roads along section lines managed by the U.S. Forest Service within the Little Missouri National Grasslands.


Ninety-five percent of the grasslands are open to roads and 5 percent is designated as roadless.

The controversy over section lines dates several years but was amplified by oil and gas development in western North Dakota, including on lands owned by North Dakota scattered throughout the Little Missouri Grasslands, Hovland wrote.

In dismissing the case, Hovland ruled this week the claims from North Dakota and the counties exceeded the statute of limitations.

Conservationists, including Wayde Schafer with the Dacotah Chapter of the Sierra Club, consider the ruling a victory that protects the Little Missouri National Grasslands from having roads constructed on every mile.

“That’s certainly not what people want to see out in the Badlands,” Schafer said.


But others argue it’s a state’s rights issue. North Dakota Attorney General Wayne Stenehjem said his office was reviewing the 72-page decision and considering filing an appeal.

Stenehjem said the state maintains it has owned the section lines since statehood.

North Dakota’s congressional delegation issued a joint statement Friday saying they’re urging federal officials to review and resolve public road and access issues in and around the Little Missouri, Sheyenne and Cedar River National Grasslands.

“We respectfully ask that the U.S. Department of Agriculture and U.S. Justice Department review and reconsider the critically important public road and access issues currently involved in litigation with the state,” said the statement from Sens. John Hoeven and Heidi Heitkamp and Rep. Kevin Cramer.

The delegation requested Agriculture Secretary Sonny Perdue and Attorney General Jeff Sessions work with North Dakota and the affected counties to find a “mutually acceptable settlement.”

 

[buckhunter24_7]

;:;popcorn

 

[AR-15]

Good

 

[PrairieGhost]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/nati...5875b7d1876_story.html?utm_term=.e892c7e537d3

This article in the Drudge report is an example of the same, but at lower levels. Cities that are very liberal are trying to defy state government. Most conservatives would say withhold any funding to these cities. Then on the other hand some will cry "states rights" when they want to defy federal government. State law should have the capability to keep cities from going completely off the reason reservation, and likewise federal government should be able to keep states from going completely off the reason reservation. We are either the United States or the disunited States. There must be some middle ground between nut job global warming, and the idea that Roundup in your GMO cornflakes is good for you. We don't need the Forest Service closing roads, nor do we need a road on every section line.

 

[LBrandt]

The only reason for a road on every section line is if God wanted to play checkers.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Never trust a democrat with your guns. Never trust a republican with your public lands.

 

[gst]

You do know that it is largely liberals seeking to ban access to and multiple usage of these public lands right?

 

[PrairieGhost]

You do know that it is largely liberals seeking to ban access to and multiple usage of these public lands right?

As far as closing roads I think your right. There may also be one other component. The cut in their budget could be another reason. I think both things contribute, but it's the bunny hugger attitude that is most at fault.

I think it would be reasonable to allow another east/west access about 40 miles north of Medora. The problem is give an inch they want a mile. The state should have no control, but the Forest Service should allow another main travel route. Perhaps straight west of Grassy Butte. I am a conservationist, not a preservationist. One road today, and save the rest for another day if needed. As more and more land is lost the remaining becomes valuable. Perhaps if they need a road there should be a land swap.

 

[gst]

As a former govt employee plainsman perhaps this is just normal to you...


https://www.fs.fed.us/sites/default/files/2015-Fire-Budget-Report.pdf


So the USFS is running short of money because the cost of fighting catastrophic fires has risen along with the number of catastrophic fires...............but they don;t realize their own management is causing the increase in the numbers of catastrophic fires.............

The one bright spot is that Trump is putting people in place that realize this.

- - - Updated - - -

. As more and more land is lost the remaining becomes valuable. Perhaps if they need a road there should be a land swap.

Plains I have asked this question once before and you have never answered. How much is enough?

What percentage of this nations lands should be owned by the govt?

How many acres should be owned by the govt?

Note I say "owned by the govt" because this is NOT "public lands" when the govt dictates and decrees by the swipe of a pen what the public can do on it.

It is no longer the publics land when the govt breaks long held promises of multiple usage with the public.

So how much land do YOU want the govt owning plains?

- - - Updated - - -

The problem is give an inch they want a mile. The state should have no control, .

Andthere in is the problem with current management that the liberals have put in place.

So much for being a states rights conservative...........
:;:thumbsup

- - - Updated - - -

Oh hey, happy Fourth of July plains......you know the celebration of our independence from a govt that believed the govt should own the lands and the peasants do their bidding they decree on these lands......

 

[dblkluk]

You do know that it is largely liberals seeking to ban access to and multiple usage of these public lands right?

and its largely conservatives that want to sell them to the highest bidder.

 

[PrairieGhost]

and its largely conservatives that want to sell them to the highest bidder.

Exactly, and that's why I say never trust a democrat with your guns and never trust a republican with your public land. The reason they want to sell it is because they want to buy it. Sell our land to them. Good bye freedom to walk free. Zombies in our homes with no where for outdoor recreation. Of course that's what they want. Pay me or rot on your couch.

 

[gst]

and its largely conservatives that want to sell them to the highest bidder.

And yet it was Harry Reid who used the nuclear option to put his aide in charge of the BLM so he could sell off lands to the Chinese whom his kids were doing business with.....

Maybe plains can copy and paste a thread he started outraged over that.........ah but then.........just maybe, just maybe he would have to admit the Bundys weren;t so whacky after all...........

Ah there aren;t any of those threads anyways.

- - - Updated - - -

plains how about you just stop with the stupid Republicans steal your lands rhetoric and post actual facts and situations where you may actually get support for sharing truth and fact instead of stories.

The public voice can be a powerful tool if you start from a position of fact and leave the foolish accusations aside.

Or not and keep up the "pay me or rot on your couch" foolishness.

 

[PrairieGhost]

Some will point out one corruption to justify their favorite corruption. Billy did it so it's ok for me to do it attitude. Meanwhile the American citizen gets shafted twice. I hope that mentality doesn't work for sportsmen.

 

[gst]

I see you chose to keep on making foolish accusations..........plains, why the pointed avoidance of answering a simple question, how much is enough?

how can anyone come to a point where they agree when you will not even answer a simple question?

 

[PrairieGhost]

A land trade simply keeps the same amount of land rather than loosing land to development. Since there is no increase the question how much is enough doesn't apply. It's simply a ploy to deceive.

 

[gst]

plains, I am not "trying to deceive"......once again you go with the foolish accusations.

There is roughly 640,000,000 acres of federally owned lands in the US which translates to about 28% of the total land mass.

In some sates such as Idaho, Utah and Alaska over 60% of the total state is owned by the Federal govt.

In Nevada almost 80% of the state is owned by the Feds.

https://fas.org/sgp/crs/misc/R42346.pdf

So if you won;t answer how much is enough, would you answer this other simple question.

Do you think that degree of land ownership by our Federal govt is what the Founders envisioned?

 

[Kurtr]

when i look into how states manage lands it is harder to get behind them. Colorado does not allow camping on any state owned land,along with other rules that make no sense. the land management boards for the states do not seem to be much better than how the feds are doing it and access would be hindered in the same ways. there is just to much politics to actually be able to manage the lands as they should be all the way from the fed down to the city level.

 

[johnr]

Who pays the property taxes on federal government owned land?

 

[Fly Carpin]

Who pays the property taxes on federal government owned land?

DOI makes Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local governments to offset property tax losses. But I see what you're getting at. We do.

 

[PrairieGhost]

DOI makes Payments In Lieu of Taxes (PILT) to local governments to offset property tax losses. But I see what you're getting at. We do.

Yes, and you have to ask some questions. What are these taxes for? They are for schools, roads, etc. So who lives on this land that needs schooling? Nobody. Who lives on this land that needs roads? Again nobody. States and counties like federal gov can't get enough money so they go after the Fed gov as if those tax dollars are magic and don't cost anyone. I think they get something like 75%. 25% would be more than fair. Ironicly people who say they are conservative will say they are owed it. No they are not.

People like to guess at what the founding fathers envisioned. What a joke to think they know. The founding fathers could not envision the land explored by Lewis and Clark so they had no foundation to have an opinion. They couldn't imagine people trying to farm some land so poor, then losing it. They could not envision farmers on the gov tit and whining for more. In their wildest dreams they could not imagine land posting and asking a neighbor for money to hunt. Be very careful the questions you ask if the founding fathers could not imagine you face in the trough.