Feds sued for blocking thousands of recreational

[2cmorau]

Releases|3-18-15 Feds sued for blocking thousands of recreational routes in Plumas National Forest - Pacific Legal Foundation

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

DR.ÖTEK Metal Detector, Waterproof Gold Detector, Pinpoint & Terrain Modes, Professional Metal Detector - Grab it through Amazon!

[enamel7]

Amen to that!

 

[mytimetoshine]

You can't sue the government and win lol....

 

[Goldwasher]

You can't sue the government and win lol....

the environmentalists do it all the time?

 

[fowledup]

I believe the majority of cases brought against the government are won by the plantiff.

 

[Hoser John]

YAHOO the Pacific Legal Foundation is the absolute best there is-KUDOS . Our rights of egress and regress are protected within the 1872 Mining Laws and MUCH further assured by Nixon administration through further codification-Yaa tricky Dick-John

 

[jog]

regress ?

 

[Mad Machinist]

Add Tahoe National Forest and Santa Fe National Forest to the list. Those two have be going on for awhile. And Apache-Sitgreaves may be added to the list soon too. And I know a lot of the people behind it.

Like I said, we ain't playing no more.

 

[Hoser John]

In and out

 

[Clay Diggins]

Add Tahoe National Forest and Santa Fe National Forest to the list. Those two have be going on for awhile. And Apache-Sitgreaves may be added to the list soon too. And I know a lot of the people behind it.

Like I said, we ain't playing no more.

Apache-Sitgreaves hasn't even finished their motor vehicle plan. If they are closing roads for any reason but the fire they are way out of line by any standard.

Heavy Pans

 

[kayakpat]

Feds may not be a problem in the near future

The new chair of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee secured a vote Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate on a controversial proposal to sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts — which many argue are unconstitutional — to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.
Senator Heinrich also introduced an amendment Wednesday which would block any effort to sell off public lands to reduce the federal deficit. Heinrich said that “selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations.”

Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

 

[fowledup]

Feds may not be a problem in the near future

The new chair of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee secured a vote Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate on a controversial proposal to sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts — which many argue are unconstitutional — to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.
Senator Heinrich also introduced an amendment Wednesday which would block any effort to sell off public lands to reduce the federal deficit. Heinrich said that “selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations.”

Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Not to get all political but it is relevant to the land we use.
It will be interesting to watch how far this goes. This is Murkowski's direct response to Obama shutting down ANWR drilling and exploration. IMHO this would more than likely be a great thing for AK as their state government is a little more responsible in looking after it's residents. Bad deal for everyone else in the lower 48, but hey they'll get theirs right. Typical blanket spank example of "I got mine poo poo on you!" syndrome. If it goes the distance kiss whats left of California good bye! For agencies like Calfire or Fish and Wildlife this is a dream come true, just think of the possibilities and funding potential.

 

[Clay Diggins]

Feds may not be a problem in the near future

The new chair of the powerful Senate Energy and Natural Resources Committee secured a vote Thursday afternoon in the U.S. Senate on a controversial proposal to sell off America’s national forests and other public lands.

U.S. Senator Lisa Murkowski’s (R-AK) amendment, which passed by a vote of 51 to 49, is now part of the Senate’s nonbinding budget resolution. The proposal would support and fund state efforts — which many argue are unconstitutional — to seize and sell America’s public lands. These include all national forests, wildlife refuges, wilderness areas, historic sites, and national monuments.
Senator Heinrich also introduced an amendment Wednesday which would block any effort to sell off public lands to reduce the federal deficit. Heinrich said that “selling off America’s treasured lands to the highest bidder would result in a proliferation of locked gates and no-trespassing signs in places that have been open to the public and used for generations.”

Public opinion research has found that a majority of Westerners oppose land grab efforts and believe that transferring public lands to state control will result in reduced access for recreation; higher taxes; increased drilling, mining and logging; and a high risk that treasured public lands will be auctioned off to the highest bidder.

Not sure what your source is kyakpat?

No such thing on the Senate dockets Congressional Record or on Murkowski's site.

Maybe I missed something but I think someone's may be pulling your leg?

Heavy Pans

 

[GoldpannerDave]

I tried to find info on Murkowski's and Heinrich's Senate pages. Several times I got

I did none of the things they said caused a problem. I think search for certain subjects may be directed to this page intentionally. After hitting that page, any link from it took me in a loop. Maybe it is just my computer, but I agree with Jethro Gibbs's Rule 39: "There is no such thing as coincidence."

 

[kayakpat]

blm land is public land

 

[Bluestar9]

Not sure what your source is kyakpat?

No such thing on the Senate dockets Congressional Record or on Murkowski's site.

Maybe I missed something but I think someone's may be pulling your leg?

Heavy Pans

Not sure which source he is using but there has been a lot of coverage on this lately. The articles are almost word for word what Kayak quoted.
Senate Votes To Help States Sell Off Public Lands | ThinkProgress
Republican Senators Just Voted To Sell Off Your National Forests
New attacks: Congress tries to sell off public lands | Wilderness.org

 

[fowledup]

https://www.backcountryhunters.org/...ands-seizure-drawing-criticism-from-sportsmen
https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838

It is SA838, it's a budget amendment- ie doesn't mean much but for political grandstanding. Which is why I say it will be interesting to watch. What is truly scary is the amount of support it got, that is whats important and should alarm everyone that reads it.

 

[kayakpat]

https://www.congress.gov/amendment/114th-congress/senate-amendment/838/text

 

[kayakpat]

Senate Votes in Favor of Public Lands Seizure

 

[Clay Diggins]

Thanks for the link to the article you pasted. That gave me the amendment #.

This isn't a bill it's an amendment to Senate concurrent resolution 11. That is a resolution relating to the Senate's ideas about future government budget spending.

It should be noted that the Senate does not establish taxing, the House does. (Constitution for a United States Article I Section 7)

This is a wish list sent to the House for their consideration when discussing the future budget. This is a very long way from being a budget item. It creates no new laws, just asks the House if the Senate can change their operating procedure relating to internal expenditures if it doesn't involve spending or receiving money that hasn't already been allocated.

Let's get to the meat of what is being proposed, here is the whole amendment:

Amendment No. 838

(Purpose: To establish a spending-neutral reserve fund relating to the
disposal of certain Federal land)

SEC. ___. SPENDING-NEUTRAL RESERVE FUND RELATING TO THE
DISPOSAL OF CERTAIN FEDERAL LAND.

The Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate
may revise the allocations of a committee or committees,
aggregates, and other appropriate levels in this
resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or
transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government
any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a
National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue
and would not increase the deficit over either the period of
the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of
the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025.

That's the whole thing. An amendment to a proposed concurrent resolution that doesn't exist yet that allows the Chairman of the Committee on the Budget of the Senate to reallocate committee budgets. The "budget of the Senate" is just the operating account for the Senate - it pays the bills for operating the Senate Committees.

Not what was advertised by the articles. Not sure how anyone thought this amounted to "sell off America’s national forests and other public lands"?

This is just more sloppy journalism. One rag publishes a sensational account of a rather uninteresting thing. It gets a little traction with some segment of the public. Other rags copy the article without doing any research of their own and now the sky is falling. Good for politicians and commercial media, bad for anyone trying to wade through all the crop they are pounded with daily.

It was an interesting but ultimately off topic distraction.

Heavy Pans