Forest closure question
- Thread starter Rackscavenger909
- Start date
Ok.... I provided the link to the closure order. It's pretty normal for the nfs to close massive parts of the forest after burns for 3 years. There is nothing about the current situation that says hunting will be banned long term so stop the FUD. FEAR UNCERTAINTY AND DOUBT. Since you want to argue about showing you things. Pleaee quote the enumerated right to access nf land. You can't because there is no right.
I award you no points
I award you no points
JUNE 30, 2015
7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE LANDS AND PUBLIC LANDS
1. The American public owns all federal public lands, including National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife preserves. Every American has a personal stake and a guaranteed say in how these places are cared for. And all Americans have the right to experience and enjoy these places.
2. By contrast, state lands are held by state governments and most of them are required to generate revenue. State lands are not owned by state residents in the same way as public lands, and Americans who live in other states have no voice whatsoever in their management. Many states do a fantastic job of managing state parks and protecting recreation, but they are governed by different rules than federal public lands. You don’t have a right to be on state lands, or the same rights as to how they are managed and sold.
3. If it makes short-term economic sense for a state to lease a bunch of its land for mineral development, subdivisions, extraction, or logging, states are well within their rights to do so. States have no obligation to involve state residents in these decisions.
4. Most states are required to balance their budgets and have a hard time running any big deficits, so they make decisions under very constrained time horizons. Having a tough economic year? Sell some land. Can’t afford wildfire expenses? Subdivide. Does this impact people's right to these places? It’s simply not relevant when most states are balancing their budgets. While we are all owners on federal public lands, we are customers on state lands.
5. All Americans enjoy these places, and all Americans share the costs to preserve these places. On average, we pay about $4 a year in income tax for public lands. If these places were transferred to the states, their governments and taxpayers would be solely responsible for managing upkeep, infrastructure, building roads, and fighting fires. This means western taxpayers would be overburdened, or states would be forced to sell off lands to pay for maintenance. What would states sell and how would it impact the outdoor recreation community and business world?
6. Some people in the West bristle at the thought of a distant federal bureaucrat telling them what to do. In reality, federal land management is incredibly decentralized. Local forest supervisors and park superintendents run the show with a ton of local input. While policies are crafted at the national level, they are implemented by locals at the local level.
7. Public lands, owned and managed by all Americans, are the backbone of a $887 billion outdoor recreation economy, millions of jobs, and thriving local economies in the west. Putting aside the policy, the fact that we own public lands is part of our experience on public lands. We are shareholders on these mountains, rivers, deserts, and forests. We have built lives and businesses inspired by what these places mean to us.
Agreed to your statement. I’m done arguing with most like minded individuals. Thanks for dealing with my tantrum. Because ya I’m pissed. And yes I understand a forest closing down. The whole state is a different story in my opinion. We hunt hard enough out here don’t let the powers that be make it impossible. I’m out,sorry if I made anyone irritated. Hopefully I’ll talk to ya all on better terms.
JUNE 30, 2015
7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE LANDS AND PUBLIC LANDS
1. The American public owns all federal public lands, including National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife preserves. Every American has a personal stake and a guaranteed say in how these places are cared for. And all Americans have the right to experience and enjoy these places.
2. By contrast, state lands are held by state governments and most of them are required to generate revenue. State lands are not owned by state residents in the same way as public lands, and Americans who live in other states have no voice whatsoever in their management. Many states do a fantastic job of managing state parks and protecting recreation, but they are governed by different rules than federal public lands. You don’t have a right to be on state lands, or the same rights as to how they are managed and sold.
3. If it makes short-term economic sense for a state to lease a bunch of its land for mineral development, subdivisions, extraction, or logging, states are well within their rights to do so. States have no obligation to involve state residents in these decisions.
4. Most states are required to balance their budgets and have a hard time running any big deficits, so they make decisions under very constrained time horizons. Having a tough economic year? Sell some land. Can’t afford wildfire expenses? Subdivide. Does this impact people's right to these places? It’s simply not relevant when most states are balancing their budgets. While we are all owners on federal public lands, we are customers on state lands.
5. All Americans enjoy these places, and all Americans share the costs to preserve these places. On average, we pay about $4 a year in income tax for public lands. If these places were transferred to the states, their governments and taxpayers would be solely responsible for managing upkeep, infrastructure, building roads, and fighting fires. This means western taxpayers would be overburdened, or states would be forced to sell off lands to pay for maintenance. What would states sell and how would it impact the outdoor recreation community and business world?
6. Some people in the West bristle at the thought of a distant federal bureaucrat telling them what to do. In reality, federal land management is incredibly decentralized. Local forest supervisors and park superintendents run the show with a ton of local input. While policies are crafted at the national level, they are implemented by locals at the local level.
7. Public lands, owned and managed by all Americans, are the backbone of a $887 billion outdoor recreation economy, millions of jobs, and thriving local economies in the west. Putting aside the policy, the fact that we own public lands is part of our experience on public lands. We are shareholders on these mountains, rivers, deserts, and forests. We have built lives and businesses inspired by what these places mean to us.
7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE LANDS AND PUBLIC LANDS
1. The American public owns all federal public lands, including National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife preserves. Every American has a personal stake and a guaranteed say in how these places are cared for. And all Americans have the right to experience and enjoy these places.
2. By contrast, state lands are held by state governments and most of them are required to generate revenue. State lands are not owned by state residents in the same way as public lands, and Americans who live in other states have no voice whatsoever in their management. Many states do a fantastic job of managing state parks and protecting recreation, but they are governed by different rules than federal public lands. You don’t have a right to be on state lands, or the same rights as to how they are managed and sold.
3. If it makes short-term economic sense for a state to lease a bunch of its land for mineral development, subdivisions, extraction, or logging, states are well within their rights to do so. States have no obligation to involve state residents in these decisions.
4. Most states are required to balance their budgets and have a hard time running any big deficits, so they make decisions under very constrained time horizons. Having a tough economic year? Sell some land. Can’t afford wildfire expenses? Subdivide. Does this impact people's right to these places? It’s simply not relevant when most states are balancing their budgets. While we are all owners on federal public lands, we are customers on state lands.
5. All Americans enjoy these places, and all Americans share the costs to preserve these places. On average, we pay about $4 a year in income tax for public lands. If these places were transferred to the states, their governments and taxpayers would be solely responsible for managing upkeep, infrastructure, building roads, and fighting fires. This means western taxpayers would be overburdened, or states would be forced to sell off lands to pay for maintenance. What would states sell and how would it impact the outdoor recreation community and business world?
6. Some people in the West bristle at the thought of a distant federal bureaucrat telling them what to do. In reality, federal land management is incredibly decentralized. Local forest supervisors and park superintendents run the show with a ton of local input. While policies are crafted at the national level, they are implemented by locals at the local level.
7. Public lands, owned and managed by all Americans, are the backbone of a $887 billion outdoor recreation economy, millions of jobs, and thriving local economies in the west. Putting aside the policy, the fact that we own public lands is part of our experience on public lands. We are shareholders on these mountains, rivers, deserts, and forests. We have built lives and businesses inspired by what these places mean to us.
Agreed to your statement. I’m done arguing with most like minded individuals. Thanks for dealing with my tantrum. Because ya I’m pissed. And yes I understand a forest closing down. The whole state is a different story in my opinion. We hunt hard enough out here don’t let the powers that be make it impossible. I’m out,sorry if I made anyone irritated. Hopefully I’ll talk to ya all on better terms.
JUNE 30, 2015
7 DIFFERENCES BETWEEN STATE LANDS AND PUBLIC LANDS
1. The American public owns all federal public lands, including National Parks, National Forests, Wilderness areas, wild and scenic rivers, and wildlife preserves. Every American has a personal stake and a guaranteed say in how these places are cared for. And all Americans have the right to experience and enjoy these places.
2. By contrast, state lands are held by state governments and most of them are required to generate revenue. State lands are not owned by state residents in the same way as public lands, and Americans who live in other states have no voice whatsoever in their management. Many states do a fantastic job of managing state parks and protecting recreation, but they are governed by different rules than federal public lands. You don’t have a right to be on state lands, or the same rights as to how they are managed and sold.
3. If it makes short-term economic sense for a state to lease a bunch of its land for mineral development, subdivisions, extraction, or logging, states are well within their rights to do so. States have no obligation to involve state residents in these decisions.
4. Most states are required to balance their budgets and have a hard time running any big deficits, so they make decisions under very constrained time horizons. Having a tough economic year? Sell some land. Can’t afford wildfire expenses? Subdivide. Does this impact people's right to these places? It’s simply not relevant when most states are balancing their budgets. While we are all owners on federal public lands, we are customers on state lands.
5. All Americans enjoy these places, and all Americans share the costs to preserve these places. On average, we pay about $4 a year in income tax for public lands. If these places were transferred to the states, their governments and taxpayers would be solely responsible for managing upkeep, infrastructure, building roads, and fighting fires. This means western taxpayers would be overburdened, or states would be forced to sell off lands to pay for maintenance. What would states sell and how would it impact the outdoor recreation community and business world?
6. Some people in the West bristle at the thought of a distant federal bureaucrat telling them what to do. In reality, federal land management is incredibly decentralized. Local forest supervisors and park superintendents run the show with a ton of local input. While policies are crafted at the national level, they are implemented by locals at the local level.
7. Public lands, owned and managed by all Americans, are the backbone of a $887 billion outdoor recreation economy, millions of jobs, and thriving local economies in the west. Putting aside the policy, the fact that we own public lands is part of our experience on public lands. We are shareholders on these mountains, rivers, deserts, and forests. We have built lives and businesses inspired by what these places mean to us.
Next weekend (9/20) will be good, cooler weather. If we don’t get the forests opened up after that, then it’s time to demand answers. Until then sit tight for mid 90s and moderate winds (not unexpected temps but also not low enough for Cal Fire to step back on the closures).
Today I was out for a drive with the family up in Oak Glen. I stopped and talked to a US forest Ranger. I was told the National Forest may be closed until we get our first rain. I was told that the Appel fire is still considered 95% contain and will not be 100% contained until the first rain. Let's hope that's not true.
Yes I see these as more control, to limit freedom activities can't have that, more zirconium un voted un justified made up laws, do we even get to vote on it, not any more.
so some say a lot of these fires have been arson, just to muck up all ready tight restrictions, and put us in more turmoil , but from what I seen so far with the riots on bitchute (Video Right Wing) and other independent news that semi legit. I would not put passed them. they want turmoil before the election,
Talking on other bulletin boards on machining and what not, these left wing nuts believe all the riots and burning are justified and see nothing wrong what Black Life Matters (Socialist's Marxist Communist) all over the world not just here are doing. Right now there massive peaceful protest in other countries against this mask laws and closing of businesses, to name a few , Germany, France, Ireland, Australia, and more. they are done with the covid 19 BS. especially the Irish they want their Pubs opened up LOL
ya gotta remember. Gavin Worthless will tell you when, how and where.... Better get used to it... Next you will sit, heel and fetch.... LMAO
Just go fishing, the closure was done at the Fed level, it will open again. All the burned and surrounding areas will be off limits for years. I am fine for them to close it to try and keep more of it from burning so hopefully some portions, with access, can be reopened.
Love me some BLM land, the sign just reads “High Fire Danger, Area Closed, Legal Hunting Allowed”
Love me some BLM land, the sign just reads “High Fire Danger, Area Closed, Legal Hunting Allowed”
But you can access blm with some common sense! Shame if they don’t let us hunters do what needs to be done. Restrict fires and camping but let the people hunt!
President Trump has a good point on California wildfires
Trump deserves credit for being on the ball in terms of one major aspect of wildfires that is often ignored: forest management is a major problem.
thehill.com
Darn rocket surgery analysis going on right here.
Or it just could be common sense.
My opinion , and just one mans opinion.
Several years ago the state locked the BIG yellow gates to the San Berdo forest and I was furious , still am , I wanted to fishing. I don't believe they have that right and I have written about it often. Today however I would personally use cuation and stay clear of the forest , mountains etc. I have at least one friend fighting the Bobcat fire and it is and was highly unpredictable. The last thing I want is the state using resources to try and save me and putting lives and property at risk.
As stated just an opinion and I'm not a sheep just a man with a family and a lot of dogs
Several years ago the state locked the BIG yellow gates to the San Berdo forest and I was furious , still am , I wanted to fishing. I don't believe they have that right and I have written about it often. Today however I would personally use cuation and stay clear of the forest , mountains etc. I have at least one friend fighting the Bobcat fire and it is and was highly unpredictable. The last thing I want is the state using resources to try and save me and putting lives and property at risk.
As stated just an opinion and I'm not a sheep just a man with a family and a lot of dogs
A Team well said let’s all remember the fallen Big Bear hot shot who we laid to rest today fighting the el dorado fire which was caused by public While Under fire restrictions
What I am saying is even with fire restrictions people don’t listen. Everyone crying about the forest being closed and they can’t hunt guess what if everyone would have followed the fire restrictions there would be a good chance the forest would still be open and a even better chance my fellow fire brother would be alive. But hey I know public land let’s do what we want have fires drive around gates cut locks f everyone as long as I got mine attitude
Interesting philosophy....
Because 1 person is an idiot, you are willing to give the government control to limit all peoples actions.
Gov't knows better, if there is a chance someone will not adhere to laws or policy we should remove the opportunity of choice completely.
Should just close down all outside activities during Summer, let's make it real easy.
Sounds like utopia to me or maybe that's actually communism...
You realize you can take your philosophy and apply it to a billion other situations we deal with in life.
Liberalism... the continued use of extreme minority situations/positions to drive policy for the majority.
To each their own I guess.
Because 1 person is an idiot, you are willing to give the government control to limit all peoples actions.
Gov't knows better, if there is a chance someone will not adhere to laws or policy we should remove the opportunity of choice completely.
Should just close down all outside activities during Summer, let's make it real easy.
Sounds like utopia to me or maybe that's actually communism...
You realize you can take your philosophy and apply it to a billion other situations we deal with in life.
Liberalism... the continued use of extreme minority situations/positions to drive policy for the majority.
To each their own I guess.
So I take it you just like to argue for argument sakes. Pretty sure we’re on the same team but I’m too tired for it right now been home 4 nights in the last 35 days fighting fires because the people expect the govt to protect them and their property ya I guess you can spin it anyway you want right? I’m out
Chill out Robert... Soon we will have to carry a fire extinguisher if we want to walk into our forest.
Shit... I shouldn't be giving them ideas....
Shit... I shouldn't be giving them ideas....
thank you for your service Skeet! I appreciate you.