Obama signs Wilderness Bill - 2 million acres confiscated by the gov't!

[Sassy]

A little background video on the UN Agenda 21  http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808

Obama signs wilderness bill
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-6642758020554799808

Obama intimately tied to carbon trading scam!
http://canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/9629

[Sassy]

I'm amazed no one has responded to this posting!  This is OUR land they are confiscating    Do you live by a river?  Or a lake?  Or some scenic, historical area?  Do you live by the ocean?  By a national park?  Actually, our national parks are being taken over by the United Nations...  many of these areas are being severely restricted from people having access, being able to buy property, build, etc. 

In California we have "Smart Growth" - the Non-Governmental Organizations (NGO's) are taking over & deciding how, what, where & how many may live in certain areas - sounds good on the surface - but watch the video, read the articles, do some research to see what the REAL motives are...

This is YOUR land! 

[Squirl]

This was already federal land, it just protects it from being developed for mining and drilling.  It protects national forests and federal areas from private development.  As a hunter, I have been waiting for an administration to take the environment and conservation seriously.  Many outdoor magazines covered the gun rights vs. outdoor conservation issues for the fall election.  Most agreed that while the Democrats might go after gun rights at least they would conserve nature.  I am more for the environment than drilling.

I agree with you that these are ALL of our lands, and it shouldn't be used to line the pockets of big energy companies.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2009/03/25/congress-approves-wilderness-setting-aside-million-acres/

[muldoon]

Sassy,

Help me understand this, I dont understand the problem. 

If I am reading this correctly, Obama designated roughly 2 million acres of land already federally owned by the national
park service and reclassified it as wilderness lands. 

No new land was confiscated, it was already federally owned and operated.  The only thing that changed was some
restrictions around what could be done on the land after it was re-designated.  In wilderness areas, people are allowed
to hike, ride horses, camp, hunt and fish. But logging, mining, building roads and riding mountain bikes is banned in
such areas. Roughly 109 million acres — or 5 percent of the United States — is federally protected wilderness.

On the rivers affected by this, no dams can be built.

If the land is already federally owned, and is a park, all that changes is that it cannot be used commercially, why
the outrage? 

[StinkerBell]

If I recall correctly, on Federal lands we as individuals have the right to log to build our own home and not too resale or make money off of.

Is it that your concern is about this little unused current law will be abolished?

[MountainDon]

I am pretty sure that you can not just go build a cabin anywhere and log the lands managed by any federal agency.

As far as the new wilderness areas muldoon and squirl have it right. What can be done on those acres is changed, but the lands are still under some federal agency umbrella. My only concern is whether or not the change to wilderness status is going to prevent access on any existing roads and trails by mechanized equipment. This has happened before and will happen again. And as active as I have been in the past couple decades on public land issues, I reluctantly agree that sometimes areas have to be closed to mechanized access because there are too darn many users who act irresponsibly.

[Sassy]

This article kinda sums up my thinking - maybe it will explain where I'm coming from a little better.  I wonder if anyone actually watched the video?  Any comments on that?  To me, it all is leading towards the UN Agenda 21 that no one seems to be concerned about...  Sure, it's great to have the Federal gov't own all this land & "protect" it...  just like they've protected Social Security, our retirements, etc.  When push comes to shove, they'll sell out to the highest bidder - how about many of our toll roads?  They've been sold (leased)to foreign corporations to run & profit from - who paid for the tollways?  Didn't the American citizen pay for them with their taxes?  Now they are out of the control of the US citizen & in the control of a foreign corp.  Yep, the cities got money up front to sell their birthrights...    I just see it as a gov't that doesn't have our best interests in mind making more restrictions - that's the goal of the UN Agenda 21...  watch the video.  Also see http://www.libertygarden.com/ & http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4299496017777786958

   HENRY LAMB Henry Lamb The fight against government land ownership
       Posted: April 16, 2005
       1:00 am Eastern

By Henry Lamb
© 2009 WorldNetDaily.com

Why does the federal government own 65 percent of all the land west of Denver and less than 2 percent of the land east of Denver? Who cares?

Everyone should care. The federal government was not created to be the owner of the land; it was created expressly to get the "right of soil" out of the hands of a king – that is, out of the hands of government.

The sovereign right of the king to own, to tax and control the use of land led directly to the Declaration of Independence in 1776, and, after six years of bloody war, to the Treaty of Paris in 1783. This treaty was not with the federal government, which did not yet exist. The treaty was between the king of England and each of the enumerated states. The treaty specifically recognizes these states:

   ...to be free sovereign and independent states, that he [the king] treats with them as such, and for himself, his heirs, and successors, relinquishes all claims to the government, propriety, and territorial rights of the same and every part thereof.

Among the many great controversies resolved by the U.S. Constitution was the question of equality among the states that constituted the original United States of America. The principle that emerged was known as the "Equal Footing Doctrine," which supposedly insured that all states were equal in their sovereign power. Article I, Section 8 specified how the federal government might acquire land and the purposes for which it could be acquired from the states. The 10th Amendment further declared that powers not explicitly granted to the federal government were retained by the states and the people.

Where, then, is the equality for the states west of the 100th meridian?

The federal government owns about 98 percent of the land in Alaska and about 86 percent of Nevada land. Overall, the feds own 65 percent of all the land west of the 100th meridian. This fact makes a mockery of the Equal Footing Doctrine that was so important to the founders.

How this situation evolved over two centuries is the subject of many books and court battles. Much can be learned about the bumpy road to the present from the U.S. Constitution Annotated. However we got to this point is not as important as the fact that despite the intentions of the founders and the clear intent of the Equal Footing Doctrine, the states east of the 100th meridian are vastly "more equal" than the states to the west.

There is no valid reason why the federal government should own this land. Originally, it was purchased, or won, as a security measure for the eastern states. Originally, the federal government's objective was to get the newly acquired land into private hands as quickly as possible. The sale of the land was helpful in retiring debts that accumulated during the Revolutionary War. Toward the end of the 19th century and throughout the 20th century, the goals and objectives of the federal government changed, due to the growing influence in the east of people who bought into the socialist ideal.

The foundation of socialism is the idea that government should own the sources of production and distribute its benefits "from each according to his ability, to each according to his need."

The land owned by the federal government is rich in resources, which should be the property of the states and the people who live there. The states and the people who live there should decide how the land and its resources are used.

But no. In the West, the federal government not only dictates how the land will be used, it also dictates how the law will be enforced. Duly elected county sheriffs are forced to stand aside while law-enforcement officers of the U.S. Forest Service confiscate the private property of ranchers who allow their cattle to eat grass that the federal government claims as its own – despite a hundred years of undisputed ownership by the rancher's family.

The federal government should not own land other than that authorized in the Constitution. It should not be dictating how land is used in any state, and it should not be enforcing its will over the authority of local elected officials.

Several efforts to change this situation in the past have failed. The problem only worsens, and the tension between government and private land ownership is inspiring a new, better-organized effort to get the government out of the real estate business. Perhaps a new revolution is in the air.

Henry Lamb is the author of "The Rise of Global Governance," chairman of Sovereignty International and founder of the Environmental Conservation Organization (ECO) and Freedom21 Inc..

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=43824

[ScottA]

You can boil all this down to one thing. Enforced scarcity. The reason the government holds these lands is to prevent the resources from being used and thus keeping prices high. One of the resources that is kept high is land itself. Would the government get out of the land business land would be much cheaper. After the floods on the mississippi and also the floods in Iowa the federal government came in and bought up thousands of acres of land to suposedly prevent future losses due to flooding. What they really did was take those acres out of production, most of which are fertile farmland. Now with all that said I belive some land should be protected in it's natural state but access to people for recreational uses should not be blocked. How much land should be set asside is hard to say but some should, maybe 10% in every state. 

[MountainDon]

For those interested here's good info, maps on the federally controlled lands...

http://www.nationalatlas.gov/printable/fedlands.html

And for anyone who is into GIS and shaepefiles...

http://www.mapcruzin.com/geography_of_risk/fed_lands.htm


Now, as far as the federal government owning or managing lands...   I get angry at some of the things the Bureau of Land Management, the US Forest Service, the US Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Park Service, the Bureau of Indian Affairs, the US Department of Defense, the US Army Corps of Engineers, the US Bureau of Reclamation or the Tennessee Valley Authority do. However, I'm not certain that I want to see any of these lands owned by my state government or by private owners.

No, actually I am certain I would not want the lands to be held under private ownership. That would guarantee loss of public access. We have enough problems maintaining traditional access here in the local national Forest. There's a patchwork of privately held lands where in some cases forest roads pass through the private land. It is nothing but trouble at times; only the lawyers make out okay.

As for the individual states, I would have to be convinced they would all do a better job; government is government.

[MountainDon]

Here's a map showing all the federally owned lands; many colors indicating the different departments.



People from the midwest to the eadt are sometimes surprised at the distribution.

[MountainDon]

Top 10

   1. Nevada           84.5%
   2. Alaska            69.1%
   3. Utah               57.4%
   4. Oregon           53.1%
   5. Idaho              50.2%
   6. Arizona           48.1%
   7. California        45.3%
   8. Wyoming         42.3%
   9. New Mexico     41.8%
  10. Colorado          36.6%

A large amount of that western acreage is available to public access, public recreation. That's one of the reasons I like the west.

Bottom 10

   1. Connecticut      0.4%
   2. Rhode Island     0.4%
   3. Iowa                  0.8%
   4. New York          0.8%
   5. Maine                1.1%
   6. Kansas              1.2%
   7. Nebraska           1.4%
   8. Alabama            1.6%
   9. Ohio                  1.7%
  10. Illinois               1.8%

[StinkerBell]

I am pretty sure that you can not just go build a cabin anywhere and log the lands managed by any federal agency.

You can not build a cabin on federal property, but we have the right as citizens  to harvest logs for personal use, not for profit.

[MountainDon]

Hmmm. 

Number one you can not and should not be able to do harvest wood in a National Park.

National Forest and BLM managed land requires the use of a permit system and areas designated as fuel wood cutting zones and no cut zones. That makes sense to me as without management and rules there would be a free for all with anyone cutting down whatever they want. Our forests would be soon a shadow of their former selves in these areas. IMO.

These forested lands should be thinned by qualified contractors though to minimize wildfire damage and maximize the forest health.

[Sassy]

Has anyone watched the videos?  Your comments are valid but there is so much more... 

[StinkerBell]

Hmmm. 

Number one you can not and should not be able to do harvest wood in a National Park.

National Forest and BLM managed land requires the use of a permit system and areas designated as fuel wood cutting zones and no cut zones. That makes sense to me as without management and rules there would be a free for all with anyone cutting down whatever they want. Our forests would be soon a shadow of their former selves in these areas. IMO.

These forested lands should be thinned by qualified contractors though to minimize wildfire damage and maximize the forest health.

Oh yes, you can not go and say "I want that tree" and take it.  Yes, the BLM manages it, the catch is they can not refuse your request to harvest for personal use (our us citizen rights). They can tell you that this one and only area can be cut and that area has no roads to access.

They can not just refuse your request. They can make it impossible. They just can not refuse the request. I wish I could remember what code and chapter number. It has to do when Teddy R got the ball going on the Parks... I am drawing a blank right now. It will come to me.

[StinkerBell]

I think the fee for the national forrest up near my cabin is about 35.00/65.00 a year. You can get your years worth of firewood. However if you are caught selling the firewood and not using it for yourself you will get into big trouble. It is managed very well, have no complaints.

[StinkerBell]

ORGANIC ACT OF 1897 [PUBLIC--No.2.]

[MountainDon]

Took ya' long enough,   

[MountainDon]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organic_Act_of_1897



and an interesting timeline..

...even though it's from an organization I have some personal problems with... and it stops at 2000. 

[StinkerBell]

Good golly! The mere fact it exist somewhere in my mind amazes me! I am just like an old computer. My hard drive is full and I just don;t seem to have enough ram.

[MountainDon]

My drive is full too and it has an auto delete I am unable to control.

[StinkerBell]

Go look in your PM box MD!

[MountainDon]

.- .-.. .-. . .- -.. -.-- / -.. .. -..

[StinkerBell]

.-.. --- .-..

[StinkerBell]

The act has some interesting verbage.

FREE USE OF TIMBER AND STONE.
21. The law provides, that
The Secretary of the Interior may permit, under regulations to be prescribed by him, the
use of timber and stone found upon such reservations, free of charge, by bona fide
settlers, miners, residents, and prospectors for minerals, for firewood, fencing, buildings,
mining, prospecting, and other domestic purposes, as may be needed by such persons for
such purposes; such timber to be used within the State or Territory, respectively, where
such reservations may be located.