Prairie legacy wilderness

[Apres]

I feel like I got a little whiny/pleading in that last post sorry all.

When areas become so popular that everyone is using them I could see a lot of multi use (birding, hiking, hunting, etc) areas having conflicting interests and being subject to lawsuits. I wonder if there would ever a be a recourse where lands that have ever received pittman robertson funds could be closed to other uses for a temporary time period, just to let others know that hunters are one of the biggest conservationists providing opportunity.

Are you suggesting majority rule or 58% of the voters? The poll on this thread says 22 for 17 against. I wouldn't use it as a yardstick.
Apres, you started this thread as a poll. A poll is a float or a feeler to gauge the crowd. To write down the pros and cons of discussions and finally mitigate or neutralize the cons at a later date.
-what I was trying to say is if it would be put to a public vote I think this passes with flying colors most uneducated(politically) sheeple would feel really good about saving a small piece of scenic land from the big bad oil companies. Without ever considering the long term ramifications one way or the other. Your right these forums are a very select group of people that can't be used to gauge a more general audience.

If you could rope and catch a winged unicorn, (maybe after baiting it close enough with a pile of corn) would you saddle it up and ride across the prairie skies? Is that a Chris LeDoux song?

Did you even read the articles and information I provided in the links?
-I read some skimmed some, but... I did open everyone.

-overall black and white I favor preservation over destruction. My selfish interests are that I (and my future lineage) would want to continue to use these areas (camp,hunt,birdwatch,forage,etc)but if I had the option to preserve this land, but could never again visit, use, think, or talk about it I would do it just to know it had been preserved

touche what if's are hard to avoid aren't they
I guess what I was asking is if we joined together and started an org. that was made up of only private individuals with no outside funding and made this same proposal (multi use wilderness designation). based on your reasons which I admit are all legitimate concerns. It seems that we would have the same issue. You couldn't claim hidden agenda by the group. but the same overall issues would apply. Lawsuits challenging multi use or restrictons, etc. These groups can come in at any time and start challenging things, even when it's private land, state owned, federal, etc. There is something endangered everywhere.

We do truly need to put a stop to the esa lawsuit game

My overall question than to any of you is how do we get:
-a Wilderness type designation that allows the land to be preserved from surface disturbance.
-non motorized except perhaps by permit only for accessibility issues (handicap)
-a true multi use landscape that subjected to natural forces only as it would have been ie: no logging, grazing by cattle to simulate buffalo herds, etc.
-safe management state or federal to minimize lawsuits

I am asking for ideas let's try to refrain from tearing each other down and work together to preserve the land

 

[gst]

Together we could tell groups like the Sierra Club to take a hike.

plains begining way back before you kicked fritz and I off Nodak Outdoors it was made clear to you what groups like the Sierra Club and others were trying to do and you have had chance after chance to tell them to "take a hike" and you never have.

Instead you joined with people that would join with HSUS to further your agendas.

Your continued predictable comments about "tooth marks on the rocks" and your ignoring of facts others tell you about what is happening ending multiple uses on these lands tell us despite your claims you do not really support those multiple uses being on these lands.

your willingness to lie and make accusations you can not back up with fact or truth when asked combined with you involvement with groups that join HSUS tells us you will say or do anything to achieve what you believe.

#$%^&>
credibility

- - - Updated - - -

I am asking for ideas let's try to refrain from tearing each other down and work together to preserve the land

First you need people to be honest about what they actually support.

 

[Apres]

involvement with groups that join HSUS
First you need people to be honest about what they actually support.

Full disclosure then... I bought a Carrie Underwood cd one time and liked it.

 

[Kurtr]

What your wanting is a pipe dream in todays world. Its a nice thought but reality is some one always has some thing they want for them selves its just how it works.

 

[westwolfone]

I guess if you're rich enough, buy a bunch of land and do (or don't Do) what you want with it.

Look at all the land Ted turner owns out west.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

When the 5200 acre Ebertz Ranch or better known as the Teddy Roosevelt Elkhorn Ranch was sold by the Ebertz family it was converted from private property to federal. Badlands Conservation Alliance was part of the group to negotiate the deal. Part of that deal was multiple use including best uses that benefit all North Dakotans. I can remember then Governor John Hoeven saying the only way North Dakota will go along with this deal is if everyone benefits and that includes oil extraction. Everybody benefits. The State and all its citizens.

The ink was barely dry when the elite environmentalists pressured Obama to make it a wilderness and go beyond the park boundaries creating a buffer zone so that no view shed is disturbed for tourists by oil wells or human development. That was to include private property adjacent to the park. Obviously the whole Obama wilderness business on the five thousand two hundred acres was an end run/double cross around what the State had intended or negotiated in good faith.

A mans handshake is only as good as his word. They're not exactly known for keeping theirs.

Apres said,

-what I was trying to say is if it would be put to a public vote I think this passes with flying colors most uneducated(politically) sheeple would feel really good about saving a small piece of scenic land from the big bad oil companies.

WTF....over????????????

 

[gst]

involvement with groups that join HSUS
First you need people to be honest about what they actually support.

Full disclosure then... I bought a Carrie Underwood cd one time and liked it.

A bit of a stretch from joining to create law here in our state that impacts private property owners...........

 

[PrairieGhost]

involvement with groups that join HSUS
First you need people to be honest about what they actually support.

Full disclosure then... I bought a Carrie Underwood cd one time and liked it.

Apres I joined a group of 30 guys one time for a measure put to voters. Two or three guys who were active in the group took some money from HSUS. Ticked me off enough to not join them the second go around. Ask gst, we talked about it through PM's on nodakoutdoors.

 

[gst]

Apres, Time and again as fritz shared we have witnessed "good intentions" and promises that sounded good only become the stepping stone to what you and others claim you do not want to happen all across the west with these orgs.

You simply can not discount that becasue this time it is here in ND.

ND unlike other western states where many communities are impacted by these federal policies, has a small percentage of it;s lands owned by the Federal govt so if this vision was able to be managed by those here in the state without the courts and agendas controling what happened I would not have a problem with setting aside undisturbed portions of the LMNG.

But as kurt says and I refered to this is a pipe dream/unicorn wish. We HAVE to understand and accept the realities of what happens.

I have been to meetings with folks like this on several occassions. If they beleive you are a supporter you can find out what their true intentions and desires to see happen are. I would bet you a steak supper if you came across as a supporter and shared the links to the Wild lands project" I shared earlier of wildlife corridors undisturnbed by human activities these people would be all for taking these private lands and converting them to accomplish it.

I ave shared links ot this before. https://www.americanprairie.org/

Sounds great right? All the right things are being said and who can argue against helping preserve nature. Until you talkwith people in the communities that actaully feel the impacts of what is happening. All the players start to emerge, The Nature Conservancy, the World Wildlife Fund, ect....... millions from outside this country and "nonprofits" (how do "nonprofits" have millions in reserves anyways)

"Shortly after TNC published its findings, World Wildlife Fund decided to initiate a conservation effort in the Montana Glaciated Plains, one of the key areas identified by TNC. They determined that an independent entity, capable of focusing all of its time and resources on the preservation of Montana’s Northern Great Plains, would be the best vehicle through which to initiate a large-scale conservation effort. In June 2001, The Prairie Foundation was officially formed as an independent non-profit organization, later named American Prairie Foundation and now simply American Prairie Reserve.

Today, American Prairie Reserve is a freestanding Montana-based nonprofit that started to assemble land in 2004. Our main focus is to purchase and permanently hold title to private lands that glue together a vast mosaic of existing public lands so that the region is managed thoughtfully and collaboratively with state and federal agencies for wildlife conservation and public access.

WWF supports hunting.........as long as it is on THEIR terms. http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/how...rogramme/species_news/wwf_and_trophy_hunting/

Take a look at those driving the org. behind this designation here in ND. http://www.badlandsconservationalliance.org/board-staff/

They have their token "growing up on a family ranch" and "avid hunter" board member and the rest are a predictable cross section of those you see in the orgs I continue to mention that push their agendas.

Give us one reason to beleive this org will be any different than any of the other orgs across the west pushing their agendas onto these lands.

- - - Updated - - -

Apres I joined a group of 30 guys one time for a measure put to voters. Two or three guys who were active in the group took some money from HSUS. Ticked me off enough to not join them the second go around. Ask gst, we talked about it through PM's on nodakoutdoors.

the PMs were plains has been caught lying about. PMs were plains denied it happened even after it was shown to be true.

The bottom line is plainsman still supported their actions and would not hold them accountable but rather made excuses.

Fritz and I have learned firsthand to not trust what plains claims.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

PG said,

In this case stalemate is a lot like "If it ain't broke don't fix it". I could live with that if you can. Tell you what Fritz you convince your friends to stop trying to take it and nearly every hunter will support grazing in the multiple use plan. Together we could tell groups like the Sierra Club to take a hike.

"Together we can... together we can tell the Sierra Club to take a hike." PSH!!! What power do you think you have sitting in your hidey hole pounding on your keyboard? When was the last time the media asked you for your opinion? The media does ask Wayde Schafer for his opinion and here is what he is saying,

https://www.researchgate.net/public...he_Brink_Is_Wilderness_Designation_the_Answer

North Dakota is the seventeenth largest state covering 70,665 sq. miles. We are an agricultural based state grow-ing everything from soybeans, potatoes and sugarbeets in the fertile Red River Valley to wheat and barley in the cen-tral part of the state. Sheep and cattle are in the far west portion of the state. It's the western part of the state that is embroiled in con-troversy. It pits the cattle and petroleum producers against the preservationists. The preservationists want to take 191,000 acres of public North Dakota range land and des-ignate it for wilderness protection. The pro-wilderness groups have written a proposal for these lands called: "Badlands on the Brink". Myself and several other North Dakotans feel this propos-al is not the best idea for these lands. There is the threat of regulations on grazing levels and recreational uses and the oil and gas exploration could be completely aborted. The western part of our state is known for its large ranches and oil production. Even slight limitations on a few acres would be detrimental to these areas and the state. Everyone has an idea of what our state looked like four hundred years ago. I see North Dakota in the past as a flat treeless area, winding rivers, waist high grass and buffalo herds. Today, North Dakota is crisscrossed by roads, grain and oil fields, inhabited by small towns, civilized with power lines and viewed from airplanes. However, there are lands in Western North Dakota that are virtually uninhabited by humans. These lands are grazed by cattle and sheep, hunt-ed, and explored for the earth's riches. These are the lands the preservationists want to designate for wilderness pro-tection. Using National parks for recreation sparked the whole idea of wilderness designation. In 1964 Congress passed the WIlderness Act. The Act establishes a preservation system that is shaped by federally owned lands set aside by Congress as wilderness. These lands will be regulated in a way that will leave them natural and undamaged for future generations. so as to preserve its natural conditions and which 1) generally appears to have been affected primarily by the forces of nature, with the imprint of man's work sub-stantially unnoticeable; 2) has outstanding opportunities for solitude or a primitive and unconfined type of recre-ation; 3) has at least 5,000 acres or is of sufficient size as to make practical its preservation and use in an unimpaired condition AND 4) may also contain ecologi-cal, geological, or features of scientific, educational, scenic or historical value. Since the establishment of this Act, almost every state has implemented some sort of wilderness system on their Federal Forest Service land. North Dakota is one of three states that has not implemented a wilderness system to date, but there are 191,000 acres being studied for desig-nation. These acres are split into thirteen different units reg-ulated by the Forest Service in a multiple use system. Currently grazing and range improvements are permitted on all thirteen units. According to Wayde Schafer, Chairman of the Teddy Roosevelt Group of the Sierra Club, who is referring to the establishment of the pro-wilderness proposal, "There is nothing to indicate grazing won't contin-ue... there will be some reductions in grazing." Mr. Schafer doesn't go on to say what those reduction will be. He only states "...reasonable regulations designed to protect wilder-ness." It's not clearly stated what is reasonable nor who will decide the reasonability. Another obstacle ranchers face is the limitations placed on grazing levels. They may only be increased if it has no adverse impact on wilderness values. The development and repair of fences may only be done if it is aimed at pro-tecting resources. Probably the largest obstacle ranchers face is the fact that motorized vehicle travel could be stopped. This would greatly complicate a rancher's work.

PG, if these orgs get a wilderness designation, I don't believe they will be asking you for your opinion. When they take things to court for what they deem to be "reasonable regulations" they won't be asking anyone for their opinion.

 

[PrairieGhost]

"Together we can... together we can tell the Sierra Club to take a hike." PSH!!! What power do you think you have sitting in your hidey hole pounding on your keyboard

? I didn't say me, I said we as in hunters and grazers, but as always you crap in the hand that's extended to you.

When was the last time the media asked you for your opinion?

Three days ago as a matter of fact. I normally don't pick up calls that say out of area. I was expecting a call and grabbed it. It was a media poll on Trump and also Heidi H. so I expect it was more local North Dakota.

PG, if these orgs get a wilderness designation, I don't believe they will be asking you for your opinion. When they take things to court for what they deem to be "reasonable regulations" they won't be asking anyone for their opinion.

I do believe that. I also believe that hunting will survive longer with them than with ranchers.

 

[gst]

? I didn't say me, I said we as in hunters and grazers, but as always you crap in the hand that's extended to you.

Three days ago as a matter of fact. I normally don't pick up calls that say out of area. I was expecting a call and grabbed it. It was a media poll on Trump and also Heidi H. so I expect it was more local North Dakota.

PG, if these orgs get a wilderness designation, I don't believe they will be asking you for your opinion. When they take things to court for what they deem to be "reasonable regulations" they won't be asking anyone for their opinion.

I do believe that. I also believe that hunting will survive longer with them than with ranchers.

When YOU extend that hand plains.....it is already filled with crap.....your own... ..as proven by your last quote.

Thanks for showing that you have thrown your support to those that would seek to end grazing and other multiple usages of these lands.

you admit knowing these orgs will use the courts to further their agendas to end multiple uses and you have now admitted in black and white that does not matter to you.

Thanks for that little bit of honesty even if you slipped up in sharing it plains.

 

[Marbleyes]

"nonprofits" (how do "nonprofits" have millions in reserves anyways)

http://www.businessdictionary.com/definition/non-profit-organization-NPO.html

It's very common for non profits to have money in reserve. A lot of non profit organizations have millions in reserves. The NFL front office was until recently (NFL decided to drop their non profit status), considered a non profit, as is the American Red Cross, united way, churches, co ops like basin electric, charities etc. Most of which have millions in reserve. The term non profit is more or less (obviously over simplified) an IRS definition for tax exempt status.

 

[gst]

Really?

Say what happened to the politics section?

 

[Marbleyes]

Say what happened to the politics section?

Noticed a few days ago it wasn't showing up unless you log in, then it shows up like it used to.

- - - Updated - - -

Really?

Yeah, I looked into non profit and not for profit organizations a few years ago because something came up that didn't make sense to me and I decided to check in to it. To me when I heard non profit or not for profit, I took the meaning literally, as I think most people would. The terms non profit and not for profit come off as misleading terms imo since they actually do and can make a substantial "profit" (like churches and the NFL). Needless to say, my impression of a non profit/not for profit changed completely after I looked in to it.

 

[gst]

If you consider yourself a Constitutional conservative this is an interesting read.

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/438586/western-states-federal-lands-conflict-their-sovereignty

[FONT=&quot]Washington curtails the ability of local governments to generate tax revenue for basic services. Over the years, America has seen steady progress on the principle that individuals enjoy equal rights under the law. But that principle is violated daily for the tens of millions of people who live in the twelve western states where most of the land is claimed by the federal government. What does federal control of most of the land within a state have to do with equal rights? The answer may surprise you. First, consider what the Supreme Court refers to as the “police power.” This is the power to legislate regarding the health, safety, and welfare of residents of a state. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare case, “state sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992) . . . Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293 (J. Madison). The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Americans in the Western States Are Denied Equal Rights Highway in rural Utah (Vitpho/Dreamstime) SHARE ARTICLE ON FACEBOOKSHARE TWEET ARTICLETWEET PLUS ONE ARTICLE ON GOOGLE PLUS+1 PRINT ARTICLE ADJUST FONT SIZEAA by GEORGE R. WENTZ JR & JOHN W. HOWARD August 2, 2016 4:00 AM Washington curtails the ability of local governments to generate tax revenue for basic services. Over the years, America has seen steady progress on the principle that individuals enjoy equal rights under the law. But that principle is violated daily for the tens of millions of people who live in the twelve western states where most of the land is claimed by the federal government. What does federal control of most of the land within a state have to do with equal rights? The answer may surprise you. First, consider what the Supreme Court refers to as the “police power.” This is the power to legislate regarding the health, safety, and welfare of residents of a state. As Chief Justice John Roberts put it in NFIB v. Sebelius, the first Obamacare case, “state sovereignty is not just an end in itself: Rather, federalism secures to citizens the liberties that derive from the diffusion of sovereign power.” New York v. United States, 505 U.S. 144, 181 (1992) . . . Because the police power is controlled by 50 different States instead of one national sovereign, the facets of governing that touch on citizens’ daily lives are normally administered by smaller governments closer to the governed. The Framers thus ensured that powers which “in the ordinary course of affairs, concern the lives, liberties, and properties of the people” were held by governments more local and more accountable than a distant federal bureaucracy. The Federalist No. 45, at 293 (J. Madison). The independent power of the States also serves as a check on the power of the Federal government: “By denying any one government complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life, federalism protects the liberty of the individual from arbitrary power.” Bond v. United States, 131 S. Ct. 2355, 2364 (2011). But in Utah, for example, where over 66 percent of the land is claimed by the federal government, unelected federal bureaucrats exercise police power over far more of Utah than the governor, state legislators, and county commissioners do. Citizens of Utah are routinely entangled in vast federal bureaucracies when it comes to issues that “in the ordinary course of affairs” concern their “lives, liberties, and properties.” They must deal with the Bureau of Land Management, the National Forest Service, the EPA, and a host of other federal bureaus, agencies, etc.. Routine local land-management issues quite literally become federal cases. One government — the federal government — has complete jurisdiction over all the concerns of public life in over 66 percent of the state, exposing Utah citizens to solidified “arbitrary power” in a way that no citizen of New York State, for example, ever encounters. There the federal government claims less than one quarter of 1 percent of the land, and New Yorkers can deal with elected local officials to solve the vast majority of their problems.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Just ask the citizens of San Juan County, Utah, who have had their homes raided by heavily armed Bureau of Land Management agents and have seen one of their county commissioners prosecuted and sentenced to ten days in prison and fined $96,000.00 for riding an all-terrain vehicle on a county water-line-maintenance road that had been unilaterally closed down by the feds. A county sheriff in New York who raided homes or arrested a county commissioner would quickly be voted out of office. The citizens of San Juan County have no such recourse. Instead of exercising their political franchise to protect their “lives, liberties and properties,” they must fight the full weight and unlimited resources of the federal government. Or consider the ability to self-govern, the cornerstone of citizenship. The Supreme Court has described the ability to tax as a necessary sovereign right of each state. And property taxes are the primary tax on which local governments depend. But Nevada is deprived of the ability to tax over 83 percent of the land within its borders. Even worse, Nye County, Nev., cannot tax the 92 percent of its land that is claimed by the federal government. Just imagine trying to fund roads, schools, libraries, police departments, fire departments, and parks-and-recreation departments on taxes generated by less than 8 percent of the land within your county.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The federal government explicitly recognized this inequity in 1976 when it passed the Federal Land Policy and Management Act. To try to compensate local governments, a sort of federal welfare program, Payment in Lieu of Taxes (PILT), was established. But PILT payments are a poor substitute for property taxes. First, PILT payments are insufficient. They pay local governments far less than what property taxes would bring in. For example, Kane County, Utah, generates much more revenue from taxing the less than 8 percent of privately owned land within its borders than it receives in PILT payments on the more than 90 percent of its land claimed by the federal government. Second, PILT payments are uncertain because eastern-state delegations routinely prevent Congress from issuing the payments, in order to pressure western delegations on pending votes. Third, governments of western states cannot spend PILT dollars the way eastern states spend tax dollars, because policy on how PILT payments can be spent is set by the federal government, not local citizens. In short, PILT payments make local governments in the west dependent on and beholden to the federal government, unlike local governments in the east, which are free to raise and spend taxes as they see fit. As a result, westerners are denied an essential right enjoyed by citizens in the east: the right to self-govern.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]They are also denied certain opportunities to get ahead in life. Eastern states routinely take land for public improvements designed to generate jobs, industry, and commerce. But western states cannot condemn federally claimed land for public improvements. Imagine trying to build a road, power line, broadband system, or telecommunications system in a state where you can’t throw a stone without running into federally claimed land. It is just not possible. Idaho recently embarked on a project to deliver additional electrical power to the state. Owing to the state’s inability to condemn federal land (over 61 percent of the state), the path of the power line had to tack jaggedly back and forth across the state. The additional length of the power line taken up in avoiding federal land reduced by two thirds the power that the project could deliver. Try creating jobs, industry, and commerce with inadequate electricity. This would have never happened in New York, where the state would simply have condemned the lands that lie in the most efficient and effective path.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Let’s consider the cumulative impact that the denial of all these rights have on westerners: the denial of equal political power. Imagine trying to convince your adult children to stay in a town they know cannot provide a thriving economy or even the basic amenities of life, such as electrical power, good roads, cell service, and broadband. Imagine attracting new people to a state without the ability to determine its own future — a state dependent on the debt-burdened federal government for welfare checks to try to survive. Impoverished western counties dominated by federally claimed land are exporting children and importing poverty. Their population does not grow. And how is political power at the federal level shared among the states? Congressional seats and Electoral College votes are allocated on the basis of population according to the Census. Population is the constitutional currency in the competition among the states for political power. And western states are deprived of that currency because they have been deprived of all the sovereign rights discussed above.[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]The Framers were concerned about this prospect. On September 5, 1787, the Constitutional Convention was considering granting the federal government the ability to purchase land within a state. According to the convention record, Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts “contended that this power might be made use of to enslave any particular State by buying up its territory, and that the strongholds proposed would be a means of awing the State into an undue obedience to the Genl. Government.”[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]As a result, the federal government was barred from purchasing land within a state without the consent of the state legislature. That protection is included in Article I, section 8, clause 17, now known as the enclave clause. However, western states have never been given dominion over the land within their borders, and the result that Mr. Gerry feared has been achieved. Western states and their citizens are not equal. Contrary to the intent of the Framers, they are awed “into an undue obedience” to the federal government.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]Those who raise this issue are often vilified as radical extremists by eastern elites. For example, in the Wall Street Journal (April 19, 2016), Interior Secretary Sally Jewell was quoted as referring to “an extreme movement to seize public lands.” That phrase mischaracterizes the careful analysis conducted by western states in their attempt to achieve equal rights for their citizens: The right to have routine matters involving their lives, liberties, and properties determined by local officials whom they elect and can vote out of office. The right to self-determination. The equal right to raise taxes to pay for roads, schools, libraries, police departments, fire departments, and parks-and-recreation departments. The right of local government to create a strong economy. And, finally, the right to be represented in the halls of Congress equally with the citizens of the 38 states not dominated by the federal government. Equality is not an extreme idea. It is the basis on which our nation was founded. In a long, unbroken line of cases extending from 1845 to the present day, the Supreme Court has consistently held that the Constitution demands equality with respect to the sovereign rights of states. All of the rights discussed above have been recognized by the Supreme Court as sovereign state rights. Their denial in some states results in the unequal treatment of the citizens of those states.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]
[/FONT][FONT=&quot]In Shelby v. Holder, 133 S.Ct. 2612 (2013), the Supreme Court overturned the pre-clearance provisions of the Voting Rights Act, which singled out certain states for disparate treatment, and in the course of his argument for the majority, Chief Justice Roberts noted that not only do States retain sovereignty under the Constitution, there is also a “fundamental principle of equal sovereignty” among the States. Over a hundred years ago, this Court explained that our Nation “was and is a union of States, equal in power, dignity and authority.” Coyle v. Smith, 221 U. S. 559, 567 (1911). Indeed, “the constitutional equality of the States is essential to the harmonious operation of the scheme upon which the Republic was organized.” The fundamental principle of equal sovereignty remains highly pertinent in assessing subsequent disparate treatment of States. Id., at 580. Today, twelve western states are being treated disparately on issues relating to their sovereignty. Millions of citizens are denied equal rights, rights enjoyed by citizens of eastern states. It is a result that the Constitution does not allow. It is wrong for for eastern politicians and federal agencies in D.C. to continue to dismiss this issue. It is time for a reasoned discussion about the denial of equal rights for citizens of western states — and about how to correct the disparity. —

George R. Wentz Jr. is a lawyer with the Davillier Law Group in New Orleans. John W. Howard is a constitutional scholar and litigator in San Diego[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]

[/FONT]

 

[gst]

This is an easy chicken or egg question. Increased fire suppression created higher fuel loads which in turn causes more aggressive fires. Done. This hasn't been a linear trajectory either. The giant tracts of single aged timber stands created by human intervention became veritable petri dishes for pests to thrive in, thus the rise of the western pine beetle which in turn very rapidly turned millions of acres and trillions of board feet of living forest into match sticks in a matter of a decade.

As a hunter, I wish there was significantly more logging. Hunting old burns and old logged areas is fantastic. Unfortunately, even if the feds didn't impose any of the early 90's regulations that industry would have still faced the challenges it ended up facing. It was not the government that put logging towns out of business, it was economics and technology. Mills got bigger and more efficient, equipment improved over time, cheap Canadian lumber hampered markets, significant production transition from western public lands to eastern private production, etc. From the 1950's to the 1990's, eastern timber growers more than doubled their production efficiency per acre. We simply can't log our forests into health as the economics will not allow it. The nation can't build enough houses or make enough coffee tables to allow for enough logs to be harvested to transform the forest.

I go back to the statement that I think that logging for the most part is a great addition to the multiple use of our western lands. But we have to accept the limitations of the market. Your assertion that the feds disinterest in multiple use is to blame for wildfires is at best a hollow argument.

An interesting article if one wishes to read and learn a bit. And get past the stupid accusations there are some good ideas here.

http://freerangereport.com/index.ph...why-the-forest-service-needs-serious-reforms/

IS IT TIME TO RETHINK THE FOREST SERVICE?​

Since the Clinton years, the Forest Service has undergone a great deal of change. The agency was producing over 12 billion board feet of timber in the late 80’s, and by the mid 90’s that volume dropped to 2 billion. To provide context, if that were converted to lumber, it would be a difference of approximately 18 billion feet of lumber. The total consumption of lumber in the United States in 2015 was 44.1 billion board feet. That’s nearly 41% all the lumber used to build homes, apartments, and other stick-framed structures. That’s astounding!
Since the change occurred, the Forest Service has been struggling to create an identity. That identity is unclear, but many of the current Forest Service employees want to do more for the land. What does that mean? Many of the leaders and line officers are doing their best to work with collaborative groups to develop management plans that work for everyone. I applaud the efforts. Praise notwithstanding, I wonder if those efforts will be enough?
Maybe it’s time for a complete overhaul of the system? Now, before you start to think that I’m advocating for the privatization or selling of Forest Service lands, I am not. At least not yet. I believe there are some ways to make some serious changes that can get us the products we need while allowing public input. It is my belief that the public participation is necessary so we can build a long-term social license to manage our forests for the benefit of all interests.

 

[Fritz the Cat]

There is about one non-profit for every 300 people in the U.S. They write grant requests to foundations. There are about one hundred thousand private foundations with about $700 Billion in assets. The IRS requires that a USA-based foundation spend approximately 5 percent of its invested assets for grant making activities and operational costs. In most cases, 95 percent of a foundations’ endowment then remain invested to earn the financial return necessary to provide the foundation with the ability to make grants in perpetuity. Grant recipients can spend up to three percent on education. (propaganda)

The Badlands Conservation Alliance is largely staff driven dependent upon foundation funding. They don't hold meetings where the membership meaningfully and democratically vote on resolutions creating policy or set the agenda. When a foundation gives a grant it expects return on investment. The Wilderness Society defunded BCA.

John D. Rockefellers heirs sit on the board of The Wilderness Society. Why would an oil tycoon fund an enviro org? "Control." Everyone knows the story. Rockefeller went to Saudi Arabia in 1933 and formed a Corporation (ARAMCO) with the Sheik. Has anyone watched an oil tanker tie up to the off load station in the middle of the Hudson River next to Statten Island New York City? Load after load since 1933. A crazy amount of money.

John D. senior had four grandsons and they operate Rockefeller Brothers Fund. A "Foundation Watch" report by Capitol Research Center has a page on their activities funding enviro orgs. I short clipped it to keep it short.

http://capitalresearch.org/app/uploads/pubs/pdf/FW0706.pdf

Rockefeller Foundation, Rockefeller Brothers Fund, Rockefeller Family Fund: The fortune amassed by John D. Rockefeller (1839-1937), founder of Standard Oil Company, is the stuff of legend. While the names of most of the 19th century Robber Barons are lost to public consciousness—railroad titans Edward Henry Harriman (remember that name) and Jay Gould come to mind— Rockefeller is still very much with us. The Rockefeller family over successive generations has been a powerful force in the world of philanthropy. Never opting for simplicity, the Rockefellers have devised many ways to support causes they favor. Together with his son, John D. Rockefeller, Jr., John D. Rockefeller Sr. established the Rockefeller Foundation in 1913. In 1940, John D. Rockefeller, Jr. and his six children set up the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Yet another entity, the Rockefeller Family Fund, was incorporated in 1967 by the fourth generation of Rockefellers, the grandchildren of John D. Rockefeller, Jr.
Active for decades in medicine, education, and civil rights, the Rockefeller Foundation didn’t get serious about funding environmental advocacy until the mid-1980s. One grantee, the Conservation Foundation, merged with the World Wildlife Fund (WWF) in 1990, enabling Rockefeller money to influence WWF’s international agenda, including projects dealing with wildlife, wetlands, tropical forests, and climate change. By then, William Reilly, the former president of the Conservation Foundation, was head of the EPA (under President George H.W. Bush) and WWF’s chairman of the board was Russell Train, EPA chief during the Carter administration. Reilly and Train exemplify the well-oiled revolving door between government, foundations and activist groups. The Rockefeller foundations are old hands at networking in the world of the rich and powerful.

From the Fund’s New York City offices, Ross coordinated EGA activities until he left the foundation in 1999. EGA annual meetings have become important strategy sessions for the environmental movement. Besides the Fund, other foundation kingpins are Pew, Cummings, and Blue Moon (formerly the W. Alton Jones Foundation) as well as the Bullitt Foundation (Seattle), Surdna Foundation (New York), Beldon Fund (Washington, D.C.), and the Joyce Foundation (Chicago) (Obama was a board member of Joyce). Companies belonging to the EGA include IBM and the leisure and sports clothiers L.L. Bean and Patagonia, Inc.

The Rockefeller philanthropies are varied and not always altruistic. Early supporters of land conservation, they were late in coming to support environmental advocacy. But while they may stray on support for GM crops (and, earlier, on DDT use), they are pillars of support for modern environmentalism.
Environmental groups receiving grants from the Rockefeller Foundation from 2000 through 2003 include:
* Environmental Law Institute, $778,933 * Conservation Law Foundation, $770,000 * World Resources Institute, $717,138 * Resources for the Future, $459,884

Environmental groups receiving support from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund:
* National Environmental Trust, 1997-2002, $1,950,000 * Friends of the Earth, 1994-2001, $1,427,500 * Natural Resources Defense Council, 1991-2001, $1,377,510 * Environmental Defense, 1997-2001, $994,363
* Environmental Media Services, 1995-2001, $672,000 * Rainforest Action Network, 2000-2003, $600,000 * Greenpeace, 1997-2003, $780,000 * Sierra Club, 1995-2001, $710,000 * Earth Island Institute, 1995-2001, $562,400 * Environmental Working Group, 1990-2000, $560,000 * Wilderness Society, 1997-2000, $520,000

PG said,

I do believe that. I also believe that hunting will survive longer with them (Sierra Club) than with ranchers.

When the Sierra Club has outlived its purpose or usefulness, the foundations will defund them.

 

[PrairieGhost]

So it sounds like these environmental groups are corrupted by big business, not big business corrupted by environmental groups right? At least that is what you presented.

It's odd how the word environmental gets tossed around. Some use it to justify what they do, and some use it as a bogy man to scare people away or towards something. I think what everyone is afraid of is the pseudo-environmentalists. Real environmentalists study nature and look for things that not only tree huggers want to know about, but common every day people like yourself Fritz want to know about. Not even the most environmentalist hating person would give a grandchild a cup of water with a turd floating in it. However there are those who would sure give it to us. Giving federal land back to the states under the guise of better access has a turd floating in it.

 

[gst]

So it sounds like these environmental groups are corrupted by big business, not big business corrupted by environmental groups right? At least that is what you presented.

It's odd how the word environmental gets tossed around. Some use it to justify what they do, and some use it as a bogy man to scare people away or towards something. I think what everyone is afraid of is the pseudo-environmentalists. Real environmentalists study nature and look for things that not only tree huggers want to know about, but common every day people like yourself Fritz want to know about. Not even the most environmentalist hating person would give a grandchild a cup of water with a turd floating in it. However there are those who would sure give it to us. Giving federal land back to the states under the guise of better access has a turd floating in it.

Plain's kiss up knows no bounds. When he kicked fritz off his outdoors site fritz was a greedy commercializer of wildlife and hunting.

The only "turd" floating here is plains feigned honesty. No where has anyone suggested giving lands back to the states only that the states should have more control and say in managing those lands within their state.

The irony here is that this same dishonesty that plains brings to these discussions with his "stories" is the kind of dishonesty these orgs bring to telling their "story" to the public.

This group we speak of uses a 37 year old congressional report that has been ignored time and again since it was written to try and calm concerns people here in our state have over their agenda and it's impact on multiple uses of these lands.

There are indeed a few "turds" floating around in the cup of water being offered here.............there is a reason some try to distract from the truth and fact that is shared.

- - - Updated - - -

PG, if these orgs get a wilderness designation, I don't believe they will be asking you for your opinion. When they take things to court for what they deem to be "reasonable regulations" they won't be asking anyone for their opinion.

I do believe that. I also believe that hunting will survive longer with them than with ranchers.

This is the closest thing to a bit of truth regarding plains ideology admitting his support of these "tree huggers" he has posted. His fellow church council members would be proud of his honesty finally.