mrs.oroblanco
Silver Member
- Joined
- Jan 2, 2008
- Messages
- 4,356
- Reaction score
- 427
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Black Hills of South Dakota
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo & Garrett Stinger
- Primary Interest:
- All Treasure Hunting
- #1
Thread Owner
County attempts to prosecute "authorities"
We all know the kind of trouble that WE would get into if we violated the Forest Service laws, the BLM laws, etc. Well, here in South Dakota, apparently, the "authorities" have the attitude of "everyone but us".
South Dakota is attempting to prosecute some of the acts of these authorities, and here is a little excerpt from my little hometown newspaper, the Edgemont Herald Tribune. (note, this is just a very small part of their list- from one of our representatives, Lance Russell - used to be our town lawyer, then the county lawyer, then the states Attorney, now a Representative
1. The National Park Service violated the Wilderness Act by transporting tourists in a 15 passenger van across designated wilderness areas.
375 F.3d 1085 (2003)
2. The Forest Service violated the Wilderness Act by planned repair of dams in Wilderness Area to enhance fisheries, downstream water flows and to preserve historical values. 436 F.Supp.2d 1117 (2006)
3. The Forest Service violated the Wilderness Act by allowing fires for visitors in areas where certain amount of firewood was available, allowing charcoal fires in areas closed to wood fires and allowing campfire use by commercial pack station in closed areas. 521 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2007)
4. The National Park Service violated the Wilderness Act by agreeing to preserve historical structures because the wilderness act only allows for natural historic and not man-made historic structures. 375 F.3d 1085 (2004).
5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Wilderness Act in allowing the sockeye salmon enhancement project to introduce hatchery-reared salmon into a lake within a designated wilderness area in or to swell Alaska salmon runs. 353 F.3d 1051 (2003)
These are just some of what he wrote. The numbers after the "allegations" are the parts of the Wilderness Act that pertains to the particular act.
I guess nobody would be surprised to know that, the "visitors" in #1 were family friends, not people like you and I, and the structures in #4 belongs to a relative of someone, and that the hatchery mentioned in #5 was a large operating hatchery who's owners made many contributions to certain people, and in #2, the "pack service" that was allowed to camp, etc., was an old croney of some of the officers?
They are stealing our land for themselves, and their friends and family. I believe their intent is to gain money and land, at our expense, while they tell us we cannot do this and that - and charge us if we DO want to go in. I hope this lawsuit goes well, because South Dakota's vision is to stop these folks from making their own regulations, behind the scenes - and to make sure that each state (not just SD) is a voting part of withdrawals of public land. Fingers crossed.
They are also trying to run a uranium pipeline through the wilderness area (along with Forest Service Land and BLM land, along with a large area where people would not be allowed (near the pipeline) - and they would be allowed motorized authorization to maintain the pipeline.
It's a mess, and the fact that they are trying to do this stuff right out in the open, tells me that they have been getting away with it forever, and don't feel like they have to be responsible.
When will they learn that they own NOTHING - not one acre belongs to these people - they are merely stewards - but yet, they are also planning on charging and making money from this pipeline - and other things. (not to mention that the uranium company is trying to get imminent domain over some patches of private ground).
Beth
We all know the kind of trouble that WE would get into if we violated the Forest Service laws, the BLM laws, etc. Well, here in South Dakota, apparently, the "authorities" have the attitude of "everyone but us".
South Dakota is attempting to prosecute some of the acts of these authorities, and here is a little excerpt from my little hometown newspaper, the Edgemont Herald Tribune. (note, this is just a very small part of their list- from one of our representatives, Lance Russell - used to be our town lawyer, then the county lawyer, then the states Attorney, now a Representative
1. The National Park Service violated the Wilderness Act by transporting tourists in a 15 passenger van across designated wilderness areas.
375 F.3d 1085 (2003)
2. The Forest Service violated the Wilderness Act by planned repair of dams in Wilderness Area to enhance fisheries, downstream water flows and to preserve historical values. 436 F.Supp.2d 1117 (2006)
3. The Forest Service violated the Wilderness Act by allowing fires for visitors in areas where certain amount of firewood was available, allowing charcoal fires in areas closed to wood fires and allowing campfire use by commercial pack station in closed areas. 521 F.Supp.2d 1065 (2007)
4. The National Park Service violated the Wilderness Act by agreeing to preserve historical structures because the wilderness act only allows for natural historic and not man-made historic structures. 375 F.3d 1085 (2004).
5. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service violated the Wilderness Act in allowing the sockeye salmon enhancement project to introduce hatchery-reared salmon into a lake within a designated wilderness area in or to swell Alaska salmon runs. 353 F.3d 1051 (2003)
These are just some of what he wrote. The numbers after the "allegations" are the parts of the Wilderness Act that pertains to the particular act.
I guess nobody would be surprised to know that, the "visitors" in #1 were family friends, not people like you and I, and the structures in #4 belongs to a relative of someone, and that the hatchery mentioned in #5 was a large operating hatchery who's owners made many contributions to certain people, and in #2, the "pack service" that was allowed to camp, etc., was an old croney of some of the officers?
They are stealing our land for themselves, and their friends and family. I believe their intent is to gain money and land, at our expense, while they tell us we cannot do this and that - and charge us if we DO want to go in. I hope this lawsuit goes well, because South Dakota's vision is to stop these folks from making their own regulations, behind the scenes - and to make sure that each state (not just SD) is a voting part of withdrawals of public land. Fingers crossed.
They are also trying to run a uranium pipeline through the wilderness area (along with Forest Service Land and BLM land, along with a large area where people would not be allowed (near the pipeline) - and they would be allowed motorized authorization to maintain the pipeline.
It's a mess, and the fact that they are trying to do this stuff right out in the open, tells me that they have been getting away with it forever, and don't feel like they have to be responsible.
When will they learn that they own NOTHING - not one acre belongs to these people - they are merely stewards - but yet, they are also planning on charging and making money from this pipeline - and other things. (not to mention that the uranium company is trying to get imminent domain over some patches of private ground).
Beth
