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 👍

Upgraded Night Vision Monocular Digital Infrared Monocular Telescope for 100% Darkness with 8X Zoom - Grab it through Amazon!

[GoldpannerDave]

And it explicitly says,

Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a
National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument,

which is contrary to the published accounts of what the Amendment actually says.

Still, I don't like the directions that is heading....

Thanks, Clay Diggins, for finally running this down for us. Thanks to kayakpat for bringing it to our attention.

 

Amazon Forum Fav 👍

Minelab PRO-FIND 35 Waterproof Pinpointer Metal Detector for Experts with Tone ID & Adjustable Sensitivity - Grab it through Amazon!

[kayakpat]

many are very concerned , it is a bill amended and added to the budget proposals, reading it all gives me a headache.

 

[Mad Machinist]

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.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Here's what Utah does with the money from State Lands:

http://le.utah.gov/xcode/Title53C/Chapter3/53C-3-S101.html?v=C53C-3-S101_1800010118000101

 

[mytimetoshine]

the environmentalists do it all the time?

Failed attempt at sarcasm on my part..?.

 

[Clay Diggins]

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.

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.

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.

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

 

[Mad Machinist]

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.

 

[allenkeeton]

i am as well sitting on the fence. I'd like to see how state control of formerly federal lands would go. To be honest, the federal budget reminds me of the grasshopper. Lounges around all day with no food saved up. well winter is coming.....

 

[Clay Diggins]

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.

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

 

[Bluestar9]

OK, back on topic.

 

[jog]

blm land is public land

Public land is Public land, No BLM land.

 

[jog]

In and out

That's better

 

[kayakpat]

The push is definitely on


Land transfer is a prelude to privatization

http://www.cato.org/publications/policy-analysis/how-why-privatize-federal-lands

http://www.hcn.org/issues/46.18/western-states-eye-federal-lands-again

https://npri.org/publications/privatize-the-public-lands

http://nation.foxnews.com/2014/04/19/western-lawmakers-aim-take-control-federal-land

http://billingsgazette.com/news/opi...cle_e3399501-6ad8-53e9-8a27-54d406961d77.html

https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/privatizing-public-lands

 

[kayakpat]

or better yet from the mouth of republican party

https://www.gop.com/platform/americas-natural-resources/

Private Stewardship of the Environment (Top)

Experience has shown that, in caring for the land and water, private ownership has been our best guarantee of conscientious stewardship, while the worst instances of environmental degradation have occurred under government control. By the same token, the most economically advanced countries – those that respect and protect private property rights – also have the strongest environmental protections, because their economic progress makes possible the conservation of natural resources. In this context, Congress should reconsider whether parts of the federal government’s enormous landholdings and control of water in the West could be better used for ranching, mining, or forestry through private ownership.

 

[Mad Machinist]

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.

 

[Mad Machinist]

Here's a little more I forgot, especially here. For years it was pushed that the spotted owls needed old growth forests to survive. Yet it has been found that the northern spotted owl is doing just as well, if not better in many cases, in managed forests.

So since the same habitat requirements were used to close areas, then the new information must be used to make decisions regarding forest management. Yet here some groups are still beating the same old drum that the owls need "old growth" to survive. We still stuck on the "old growth" thing and having areas and roads closed as protected owl activity centers when new research shows that this is not needed. Yet the USFS and to an extent, the BLM, are refusing to accept new research.

So here we are. People have had enough.

 

[Mad Machinist]

And about the BLM lands, many areas are being closed because of the desert tortoise. It is claimed that human activity in causing their demise. Well this was presented and ignored: http://www.fws.gov/nevada/desert_to...-pred-resource-var-human-poplns-DT-poplns.pdf

And don't even get me started on the sage grouse.

They wouldn't listen before, ya think they are ready listening now?

 

[Mad Machinist]

Sorry all. Took a break to help the wife with her knee injury.

Anyhow, when the travel management plans are done, the USFS is allowed to make a GUESS on where people are driving. They DO NOT actually have to put boots on the ground to see what is being used and what is not. So if they want to close an area, they simply justify it through their "best guess" as to people not using that area, And then we are stuck fighting to keep it open And typically we end up losing unless we are willing to put money up to hire lawyers to fight it out in court. And all of this is after we pay taxes to keep the land "public".

This is where al the lawsuits are coming from. Many routes are being closed after many years of being in use since the USFS "thinks" no one is using them.

 

[Clay Diggins]

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.

I understand and agree with you on most of your points about timber management and road closures.

I doubt we could have a meeting of the minds on biomass exportation from stressed environments but that's the least of the forest management problems for the moment. It will come back to haunt those supposed "managers" in the future but for now they need to thin and back off from active management practices from the past.

You write with some authority, knowledge and an obvious passion. Those are all good things. Please try to stay current on the facts or you will get slaughtered on the public stage. A good spokesman understands the subject intimately and doesn't speak to things they aren't prepared to back up with facts.

Try to stick to one subject at a time and always be prepared to explain again and again in detail.

Please don't take the following as criticism, we need thoughtful well spoken people like you if we are going to create a decent future. These notes are to help you understand where you will be distracted from your goals.

_________________

Any BLM wilderness study areas from the 90's have expired or have been made wilderness by Congress. The BLM's ability to create new wilderness study areas expired in 1993. By 2013 all the study areas that weren't already designated wilderness by Congress ceased to be designated BLM wilderness study areas.

_________________

The only Lost Burro Mine I know of is in California. You won't have much luck opening that one since it's in Death Valley National Park. Before it was a National Park it was a wilderness and a National Monument - since 1933. There is no Lost Burro Mine claim listed there or anywhere else in Arizona.

You will have to be clearer about your complaint. There is no commonly available public information to lead a reader to understand what your complaint about the Lost Burro Mine is. Please provide some verifiable facts.

_________________

The Sage Grouse nonsense is over, it's time to move on, we won that one.

ALL 14 conservation areas have been withdrawn, the courts have shut most of them down and the BLM have officially abandoned the others now.

The Sage Grouse will not be listed or protected:

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).

_________________

I don't know what "control would be transferred" there is no law on the books or proposed that would transfer the Public Lands to the States.

As I've already pointed out the State Trust Lands in Arizona are not the property of and are not controlled by the State of Arizona. If that isn't clear to you in Title 37 or the statutes you can read Article X of the organic Constitution of Arizona State or the 1912 Enabling Act. The Trust Lands are external to the State.

How anybody would think it was a good idea to transfer the Public Lands to a private trust is beyond me. Luckily there is no such proposal on the horizon. Unless you count the one made up article circulating endlessly through the internet.

_________________

Keep up the postings but please keep us informed on the details. Let us know what you want us to be informed about before you move on to a new subject. Check your sources. I do my own research when I hear of others misdeeds or complaints. Help me and your readers to get to the facts ourselves.

Thanks for your efforts Mad Machinist, keep up your studies and your passion.

Heavy Pans

 

[azblackbird]

Many routes are being closed after many years of being in use since the USFS "thinks" no one is using them.

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.

BTW... if you're a "bona-fide" prospector/miner, then any road or trail closures are a non-issue anyways. You just need to know your rights.