which is contrary to the published accounts of what the Amendment actually says.Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a
National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument,
the environmentalists do it all the time?
Ya'll might want to take a look at what the "sale" of State Land goes to. Here's what happens to the proceeds from the "sale or lease" of "State Lands" in Arizona.
https://land.az.gov/about/state-land-department-beneficiaries
And we have very specific laws concerning the sale or lease of those lands.
All uses of the land must benefit the Trust, a fact that distinguishes it from the way public land, such as parks or national forests, may be used. While public use of Trust land is not prohibited, it is regulated to ensure protection of the land and reimbursement to the beneficiaries for its use.
Those are State Trust Lands. Not State Lands. Two very different things.
The State Trust Lands belong to the 14 individual trusts set up before or at Statehood.
Money received by sale lease or rental of the State Trust Lands stays with the trust. It is not State government money or revenue.
The lands are not controlled by the State Legislature. The trusts are legally outside of the State. The selection board that controls the use or sale of the trust lands are not elected to that position.
It's interesting to note that three of the State Trusts were created to benefit miners and their widows and orphans. The Pioneers Home in Prescott used up a lot of the Miners Hospital Trusts benefits illegally and is being closed this coming July after 100 years of ripping off the miners benefits. Seems they can't pay back the money they owe so they are closing despite several retired miner's having made their home there.
Miner's in one of the biggest mining states (The Copper State) still can't get an honest break.
The State Trust lands are not public lands so you are going to have a difficult time tying those State Lands in with the Forest Service closing public roads.
Heavy Pans
Clay,
What I posted has nothing to do with the Forests. Those will actually stay the same under the proposal put forth. What this DOES have to do with is BLM land and the crap they are pulling whether mining, ranching or otherwise.
Under the proposal, to my understanding, ALL federal lands transferred would be administered as State Trust Lands as all the States already have that set up. And as far as selling the land, not likely, as the States actually make more money off of leasing them and at least for Arizona, there is a "royalty" paid on all minerals removed.
I'm still on the fence as far as to whether or not this is a good idea. But the more crap that is pulled, the better this is starting to sound.
blm land is public land
In and out
What proposal are you writing about?
The budget proposal put forth doesn't exempt Forest Lands, it doesn't mention the BLM, it doesn't mention State Trusts and it doesn't propose selling or giving land to States. There is nothing in there about giving away land to the States or anyone else.
The Fed already sells and trades land to States every year. The budget proposal is about how the money to run the Senate committees that discuss selling those lands to the state allocate their funds. It's that simple no matter what you read on the internet. Read the proposal again, it's just one paragraph.
This thread is about blocking roads on National Forests. I see you do have opinions about that subject. How does this budget proposal have anything to do with blocking roads on National Forest lands?
Heavy Pans
Clay,
I've been to several meeting about this here locally. Some of this went into high gear after the Wallow Fire here. It was discussed here about how the forest service just began arbitrarily closing the old logging roads in the '80's with out doing any NEPA work. Then in the '90's they decided to make many areas into wilderness study areas basically closing them to all but a few uses.
More than a few of the areas closed do have a know mineral content. I have a claim on one area that they are trying to declare wilderness. It has a known gold content, maybe you have heard of it, it was called The Lost Burro Mine..
Again, like I said I have been to several meeting here locally. Control would be transferred to the State Trust Land Commission and then it would fall under Trust Lands and the rules and laws that apply there. All rues and laws governing State trust Land here are codified under Title 37 of the A.R.S.
I know more than a few of the people here that work for the FS at ASNF. They have tried in the past to get this forest thinned out to prevent fire. Yet the last time they tried, the Big Bear sale in 1995, they were sued over "old growth" forests and the "impacts" it would have on the endangered species here.
Well, 545,000 acres of it burnt, including over 150,000 acres that were moonscaped. This affected the endangered species, the ranchers, the local flora and fauna, pretty much everything. Now roads are being closed due to "instability" in the forest.
What most people DO NOT know is the logging roads here were built by the USFS, not the logging companies as is stated. Ever wonder why the USFS usually LOSES money on a timber sale. In other words, WE paid for the roads through our tax dollars. Now they are being arbitrarily closed over what amounts to crap.
Now that the roads are closed and after the Wallow Fire, someone got the great idea that we finally need to thin out our forests. 4FRI
And many of the area needing thinned, are now planned as additions to wilderness areas. In otherwords, no motorized equipment. Starting to see where this is going?
Many of the roads left here were to be left open before the burn. Now after the burn, they are to be closed, including a very popular OHV trail here. I'll find the before and after maps for you a little later.
And when you throw in all the crap and misinformation about endangered species, it get real stupid, real quick.
There is no money to be recovered in suing the states, only the federal government. Equal Access to Justice Act - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
I have been involved in this stuff for too many years and it basically comes down to litigation and closures by lawsuit. And with the federal gov't refusing to do anything about the system being twisted to the ends of a very small group, a lot of people are looking at this as an option.
RENO, Nev. April 21, 2015 – U.S. Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell announced that the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service has determined that the Bi-State population of greater sage-grouse does not require the protection of the Endangered Species Act (ESA).
You done already missed that train if you ride in the Phoenix, Prescott, or Flagstaff areas. We (single track riders) already BTDT several years ago with the Prescott, Coconino, and Tonto forests here in AZ. Due to our input with the Feds, nothing much really changed with our single track trails and the travel management plans for most of the areas we dirt bikers like to ride. In fact we've even been building new trails with the Fed's (actually our) money and their full approval. Now, if you want to talk about the "squid" areas. Yes, there were many trails that were closed (or will be closed) just because they were redundant and mostly all looped back into each other. I have no qualms with those closures as the land was getting pretty well beat up in those areas. I do believe in some conservation.Many routes are being closed after many years of being in use since the USFS "thinks" no one is using them.