please stop voting for bigger government!

[bigfoot1]

If you are voting for bigger government than you should be happy with new rules and restrictions in ALL areas of public land use.Heck...bigger equalls more intrusive....right?Ever seen those types remove rules...ever?

If you vote for smaller and less intrusive government then I share your pain.Maybe,"they"will get fed up with the results and start voting for less govt.We can only hope.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Cry Of The Eagle: History And Legends Of The Cherokee Indians And Their Buried Treasure - Grab it through Amazon!

[bigfoot1]

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-urges-new-wilderness-protection.

and what do you think this will mean for us?

 

[Keppy]

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-urges-new-wilderness-protection.

and what do you think this will mean for us?[/QUOT..... Obama and his crew are doing a good job to ruin a lot of things for every one.... Not just us that detect.

 

[Native Floridian]

Have I missed something? Is there some big fed gov move restricting land use? Or is this just another let's bash Obama thread?

 

[Native Floridian]

www.huffingtonpost.com/.../obama-urges-new-wilderness-protection.

and what do you think this will mean for us?[/QUOT..... Obama and his crew are doing a good job to ruin a lot of things for every one.... Not just us that detect.

Keppy, Ok, I'll bite, what are Obama and his crew ruining for everybody? I mean i hear this all the time. Some blowhard going off about how Obama is wrecking everything for him. Then the guy gets in his $60,000 F350 pick up truck and drives off pulling his $80,000 Bass Boat. So, maybe you can explain it here?

 

[bigfoot1]

your kidding right?Google public land restriction and note that the pace public land is being restricted has NEVER been faster.I dont bash obama...I bash em all.If you are happy with whats happening its cool...to each there own.

fifteen minutes of research will prolly shock you.It did me.

 

[bigfoot1]

Prominent legislative leaders oppose new restrictions on public lands in Arizona | The Official Website of the Arizona State Senate Republican Caucus
Obama moves to protect wilderness areas - SFGate
Obama signs massive wilderness bill | McClatchy


took 3 minutes

 

[Native Floridian]

OK, let me see if i understand this - Obama signed into law a measure that would stop developers from turning natural woodlands into shopping centers - stops damaging uses of natural areas, and protects these areas for future generations to enjoy and you are against this?

About 35 years ago congress did the same thing to 1/3 of the state of NJ. That protected tract of land is called The Pinelands National Reserve. It protects one of the largest undeground aquifers in the world. I live about 10 miles outside it's western boundry. The only people who don't like it are the developers who can't make money there.

Fresh water bubbles up from the aquifer forming some of the cleanest rivers in the country. When I tell people this they say "In NJ?" Yup, right here. So, again, It's not a problem here. it saved us from over developement and misuse of the land. Our woods are not dusty mud trails of rutted out ATV trails. They are actually a place you can hike and enjoy!

If you want have an Obama bash festival go for it, but saving open space for everyone to enjoy, not a bad thing!

 

[GMD52]

The idea is , and always has been, that our Federal land is held for the use and benefit for all citizens, that does not mean the constant restriction of use, or in the non-use of these public lands that are owned and funded by us.

A good example of this is our national forest lands. They were initially managed for the sustained yield of our renewable resources, and the multiple use of the public for recreation, timber, water, and such. They were not acquired for the total preservation and none use of these resources. Every time a special interest group wants to save a tree, animal, or scenic vista....Which ever administration in control designates new restrictions on our resoures that become non productive and economically dead. If we continued to subscribe to the management doctrines og Gifford Pinchot, founder of the U.S. forest service we could supply the materials for our housing needs without having to import a large majority . The more land that is preserved,( meaning non-use), vs. conserved( wise-use), the more our natural resources just go to waste.

These public lands are bought and managed with the tax dollars of the citizens, and the Gov't needs to listen and act in the wisest capacity for all, not a few.

 

[Keppy]

Have I missed something? Is there some big fed gov move restricting land use? Or is this just another let's bash Obama thread?

Well i like to bash them all .. But i really like to bash Obama ..............

 

[atomicscott]

If you are voting for bigger government than you should be happy with new rules and restrictions in ALL areas of public land use.Heck...bigger equalls more intrusive....right?Ever seen those types remove rules...ever?

If you vote for smaller and less intrusive government then I share your pain.Maybe,"they"will get fed up with the results and start voting for less govt.We can only hope.

Im with ya buddy! If we don't stop this madness, America is gonna end up a third world country and we will have NO say in any of their regulations or policies! This is getting scary

 

[Keppy]

Im with ya buddy! If we don't stop this madness, America is gonna end up a third world country and we will have NO say in any of their regulations or policies! This is getting scary

.. Real scary with this guy in office.......

 

[squiggy]

Well i like to bash them all .. But i really like to bash Obama ..............

That's honest. .LOL!

 

[squiggy]

.. Real scary with this guy in office.......

I am non-partisan, when it comes to Obama I am concerned for sure!!!

 

[bigfoot1]

Native Floridian and any others.I live in a forest.I am completely surrounded by national forest property.Been here over thirty years.The forestry here has gone from resource management to absolute dictatorship.They blew up all the old mining buildings so they wouldnt get valdalized.they blew shut ALL of the accesible mines so they wouldnt cave in on someone.The entire forest is barb wired along nearly every access road so 4x4 traffic would not create damage or an eyesore....its friggin ugly now.

all of these,Reasons" are direct quotes from them....San Bernardino national forest...native floridian...hiking is fine and wonderful...but so are many other activities enjoyed by fellow americans who also own and help fund these public lands.

Its NEVER ok to look the other way when senseless restrictions befall your area.Even if your personal activity is not affected.Some make sense and others are just out there...the truth is nearly always in the middle somewhere.If only the extremists in charge would understand that.And unfortunately these extremists all seems to subscribe to the notion that bigger is always better when it comes to governance....fair?

 

[hvacker]

BO isn't an outdoor type. Not a camper. I can't imagine these ideas coming from him. He's a city guy. In thinking about it, after Dubya wanted to erect oil and gas rigs anywhere and everywhere it's more likely a reaction by some enlightened members of congress (My state had two) to save as much wilderness as possible before another Bush or bush clone takes office.
While I like the freedom we have with public lands today I have also seen wilderness types ruin a lot of land with 4x4's and quads. Never staying on trails and tearing up anything in their way. I've known some to run down antelope until their hearts burst. So those people can kick their own a$$ for creating a problem. Those that vote "Drill baby drill" can also kick themselves because of the lack of understanding that attitude brings. What puzzles me more is what did they have to gain by lining corporate pockets with their vote?
I know making a wilderness designation can mean a lot of restrictions. Did you also know corporates with public land leases do. Their first act is NO TRESPASSING. Now that's a real restriction.
BO just allowed voices to be heard that had been silenced. It will probably swing too far the other way for awhile. Bigfoot1, I think if you would give thought to where the land management would have gone. In the corporate pocket. While it might have looked like we had more liberty I think it would have been short lived given a bit more time. There's just too much money there.
This just means we have more work to do.

 

[hvacker]

OK, let me see if i understand this - Obama signed into law a measure that would stop developers from turning natural woodlands into shopping centers - stops damaging uses of natural areas, and protects these areas for future generations to enjoy and you are against this?

About 35 years ago congress did the same thing to 1/3 of the state of NJ. That protected tract of land is called The Pinelands National Reserve. It protects one of the largest undeground aquifers in the world. I live about 10 miles outside it's western boundry. The only people who don't like it are the developers who can't make money there.

Fresh water bubbles up from the aquifer forming some of the cleanest rivers in the country. When I tell people this they say "In NJ?" Yup, right here. So, again, It's not a problem here. it saved us from over developement and misuse of the land. Our woods are not dusty mud trails of rutted out ATV trails. They are actually a place you can hike and enjoy!

If you want have an Obama bash festival go for it, but saving open space for everyone to enjoy, not a bad thing!

I used to live in the NJ pine barrens. We called them the Pinnies. People don't believe it when I tell them go 30 feet into the Pinnies and you won't know how to get out. Thick as a brick. Packs of wild dogs etc. Fort Dix Arny base has a large bivouac area there.

 

[bigfoot1]

hvacker,
An intellegent reply and I for one respect that.However as I said the truth is most often found in the middle and unfortunately the current governanve attitude is nowhere near the middle.Sway to far from it and inevitably freedoms are lost.Its sad really.

 

[herb n surf]

The liberals want 12 million illegals in this country to have a vote . If this happens there would be no way to stop an out of control big federal government . All 12 million would vote for THEM (you know who). I am sorry to say "I think we are done folks !!"

 

[squiggy]

hvacker,
An intellegent reply and I for one respect that.However as I said the truth is most often found in the middle and unfortunately the current governanve attitude is nowhere near the middle.Sway to far from it and inevitably freedoms are lost.Its sad really.

Agree! Not right not left but the THINK FOR YOURSELF middle!