Make America Beautiful Again EO

[Gerald Martin]

Regarding the conversation about federal lands being handed over to the states…

I’m paraphrasing as well but the enabling acts of the western states that transitioned their status from territories to states of the Union contain specific language that defines which parcels of lands belong to the new state for funding their schools and specifically state that the states relinquish any claim to the rest of the land within their borders.

 

[antlerradar]

Not surprising. The main topics of conversation in rural areas, right after the weather, fall into three categories. 1) the price of the 3Fs (fuel, feed, and fertilizer) are too high, 2) idiot neighbor is doing something wrong (who the idiot neighbor is typically rotates) and 3) the government is screwing us again (rotating between county, state, Feds).

Conversation number 4 happens from September to the end of the year and then starts up again in the spring for a couple of months. something along the line of how tired of hunting season you are, and often fits in nicely with number 3.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

I might be speaking out of turn, and I dont want to ruffle feathers. I actually hate these threads, nothing gets accomplished. But if we keep spending the way we are and growing the federal goverment (which produces no taxable income) including when they buy up lands and call them federal lands. When our debt comes do (all the money we have been printing ) and we can not pay the interest on that this debt, or dollar ( which is weaking by the day) will be useless. Our slimy politicians and government folks will sell off the lands they have confiscated (public lands) to our debtors (China, India, etc.) and no one will have access to all theses lands. But we can all be happy we bitched, whined and moaned about keeping them federal as they sell them to forgien buyers off for keeping this generation fat happy and uncountable to future generations.

So this is a common opinion and unfortunately it is a poorly informed one. Study after study have shown the value of not only federal lands but also federal workers, as compared to private sector. In addition, a simple search of OPM data will debunk the myth that the federal workforce is "bloated." It hasn't grown since the late 1960's! But, departments like Homeland Security have grown significantly since that time, meaning corresponding cuts in other areas. So the if anyone wants to talk about "bloating," the only bloating to be found is in departments that most conservatives actually support. The last inconvenient truth here is that the last administration to significantly reduce the federal workforce AND balance the budget (something this administration didn't do in its first term, or so far in its second) was the Clinton administration.

 

[Mustangs Rule]

I agree. A lot of states can't. The answer would be to sell it, so it's not their problem.

Its a dilemma for me.

Constitution says, it can be sent to the states.

But going to the states would end in disaster.

I live in an area that absolutely hates the BLM and forest service. But no one can provide a truly reasonable alternative that keeps the land in states hands and funds all the needs.

You seem the more coolheaded of this group. So, bear with me while I ask you a few questions. And honest, I am not trying to ask any "gotcha questions". i am just trying to understand very different community feelings about both BLM and USFS. I have spent almost the last forty years living rurally in three different places, which adjoined both USFS and BLM lands.

I cannot think of anyone ever saying that they "absolutely hated" BLM and USFS.. What i heard a lot was, "Who would want that kind of job in which they are in the middle of so many conflicting special interest groups." Generally speaking, most folks where i have lived thought BLM and USFS were doing as best they could and were either neutral or positive about BLM and USFS

So why do the folks where you live hold both BLM and USFS in such bad regards?

 

[mevertsen]

You seem the more coolheaded of this group. So, bear with me while I ask you a few questions. And honest, I am not trying to ask any "gotcha questions". i am just trying to understand very different community feelings about both BLM and USFS. I have spent almost the last forty years living rurally in three different places, which adjoined both USFS and BLM lands.

I cannot think of anyone ever saying that they "absolutely hated" BLM and USFS.. What i heard a lot was, "Who would want that kind of job in which they are in the middle of so many conflicting special interest groups." Generally speaking, most folks where i have lived thought BLM and USFS were doing as best they could and were either neutral or positive about BLM and USFS

So why do the folks where you live hold both BLM and USFS in such bad regards?

Thanks for putting me on the spot. Lol.

I truly can't answer "why" for everyone.

Recent conversations I've had, or heard about from family regarding a wildfire...

"They" (who they is i dont know for sure, but i presume to be the BLM) say that this fire never made it totally he valley floor, but i beg to differ" this coming from a conspiracy theory type of person, who somehow knows how to do things better than anyone.

A recent conversation with a friend, "doing what firefighters do and watching it burn" after BLM has taken control of the fire.

Many stickers "BYE BYE BLM"

Several signs across the highway from the Batle Mountain BLM field office saying "fire Fertado" other signs along that stretch, get rid of the BLM, all kinds of rhetoric.

Jarbidge Shovel Brigade - link is good.

Kicking and screaming in Nevada - High Country News

The July 4 Shovel Brigade rally was a yawner, but protesters may still get what they want

www.hcn.org

Sagebrush rebellion

Rebellion-leading rancher Carver dies

Richard

lasvegassun.com

Cowboy Express - the ride in which Grant Gerber died as a result of a horse wreck. He was my land lord for a time years ago, and his sons have handled my families estate planning and tbe adoption of my daughter. Tbe lady in the photo of this link is part of a big family in the area, and I am friends with a ranch owner by that name (not certain of their exact relationship)

Cowboy Express gallops into Utah to protest federal land managers

A group of Nevada and Utah ranchers are taking their frustration with the BLM to Washington D.C., by aiming to complete the nation's first coast-to-coast horseback ride. The Grass March/Cowboy Express crossed into Utah Thursday.

www.deseret.com

I hope that answers some of the questions for the why.

I am of the sentiment that locals certainly have a better handle on things than someone in a far away place.

I dont hate the BLM or Forest Service. I could see problems if our county actually had control of land because the population is so low, and the influences by very few people could sway thi gs way too much

State ownership and control seems best to me, with a clear transition and understanding of many needs.

Many include...

Fires
Horses
Roads
Wilderness areas, present and future
Land preservation guarantee

I hope this helps.

 

[Justabirdwatcher]

You seem the more coolheaded of this group. So, bear with me while I ask you a few questions. And honest, I am not trying to ask any "gotcha questions". i am just trying to understand very different community feelings about both BLM and USFS. I have spent almost the last forty years living rurally in three different places, which adjoined both USFS and BLM lands.

I cannot think of anyone ever saying that they "absolutely hated" BLM and USFS.. What i heard a lot was, "Who would want that kind of job in which they are in the middle of so many conflicting special interest groups." Generally speaking, most folks where i have lived thought BLM and USFS were doing as best they could and were either neutral or positive about BLM and USFS

So why do the folks where you live hold both BLM and USFS in such bad regards?

If only everyone held those opinions. Because what you say is true. Many volunteers for federal lands, after retiring from the private sector, cannot believe the diversity of responsibilities or the lack of staffing that federal land managers have. But you gotta see it first hand to understand that. And most folks are just repeating things they have heard, either from neighbors, family or the biased media they consume.

 

[SAJ-99]

Thanks for putting me on the spot. Lol.

I truly can't answer "why" for everyone.

Recent conversations I've had, or heard about from family regarding a wildfire...

"They" (who they is i dont know for sure, but i presume to be the BLM) say that this fire never made it totally he valley floor, but i beg to differ" this coming from a conspiracy theory type of person, who somehow knows how to do things better than anyone.

A recent conversation with a friend, "doing what firefighters do and watching it burn" after BLM has taken control of the fire.

Many stickers "BYE BYE BLM"

Several signs across the highway from the Batle Mountain BLM field office saying "fire Fertado" other signs along that stretch, get rid of the BLM, all kinds of rhetoric.

Jarbidge Shovel Brigade - link is good.

Kicking and screaming in Nevada - High Country News

The July 4 Shovel Brigade rally was a yawner, but protesters may still get what they want

www.hcn.org

Sagebrush rebellion

Rebellion-leading rancher Carver dies

Richard

lasvegassun.com

Cowboy Express - the ride in which Grant Gerber died as a result of a horse wreck. He was my land lord for a time years ago, and his sons have handled my families estate planning and tbe adoption of my daughter. Tbe lady in the photo of this link is part of a big family in the area, and I am friends with a ranch owner by that name (not certain of their exact relationship)

Cowboy Express gallops into Utah to protest federal land managers

A group of Nevada and Utah ranchers are taking their frustration with the BLM to Washington D.C., by aiming to complete the nation's first coast-to-coast horseback ride. The Grass March/Cowboy Express crossed into Utah Thursday.

www.deseret.com

I hope that answers some of the questions for the why.

I am of the sentiment that locals certainly have a better handle on things than someone in a far away place.

I dont hate the BLM or Forest Service. I could see problems if our county actually had control of land because the population is so low, and the influences by very few people could sway thi gs way too much

State ownership and control seems best to me, with a clear transition and understanding of many needs.

Many include...

Fires
Horses
Roads
Wilderness areas, present and future
Land preservation guarantee

I hope this helps.

Your post is great, but the first sentence of the article says it all.

"They’re first going to take your guns, then your land, then your children!”

 

[mevertsen]

Your post is great, but the first sentence of the article says it all.

"They’re first going to take your guns, then your land, then your children!”

View attachment 377329

Welcome to rural Nevada.

Walk into a bar, church, community event, restaurant, whatever, and you are very likely to hear that sentiment if you get into a conversation with many people.

I didn't cherry pick the article.

I just did a search and picked one.

I knw people ( I was young then) who were on the shovel brigade, (there were lots of shovels shoved into the ground at the district court house on Elko). I know people who went on the freedom ride. It is a part of life out here.


Edit ...

John Carpenter, quoted in the Jarbidge article, the Sheriff's Office Bulding is named.after him, happened only a few years ago if I remember correctly.

These aren't stories of one-of-a-kind events. Whole communities have gotten behind and supported these causes.

 

[Nick87]

Your post is great, but the first sentence of the article says it all.

"They’re first going to take your guns, then your land, then your children!”

View attachment 377329

You do realize there's more than one flavor of kool-aid aid right?

 

[SAJ-99]

You do realize there's more than one flavor of kool-aid aid right?

 

[SAJ-99]

You do realize there's more than one flavor of kool-aid aid right?

in all honesty, I think all Americans want their Kool-aid and avoid reality. It makes us feel better to think, as we enjoy our privilege, that we are being screwed by someone else.

 

[elkduds]

Welcome to rural Nevada.

Walk into a bar, church, community event, restaurant, whatever, and you are very likely to hear that sentiment if you get into a conversation with many people.

I didn't cherry pick the article.

I just did a search and picked one.

I knw people ( I was young then) who were on the shovel brigade, (there were lots of shovels shoved into the ground at the district court house on Elko). I know people who went on the freedom ride. It is a part of life out here.


Edit ...

John Carpenter, quoted in the Jarbidge article, the Sheriff's Office Bulding is named.after him, happened only a few years ago if I remember correctly.

These aren't stories of one-of-a-kind events. Whole communities have gotten behind and supported these causes.

Those communities are laboring under the delusion that because they live adjacent to federal lands they should have special privileges, that somehow it belongs more to them than to every other citizen. It was already federal land when they showed up, now they want to claim it as their own. Should that federal land fall into private hands, they will be peasants looking in at the King's deer, rivers, pastures, forests, wetlands; all untouchable to them. You can't fix stupid, so never yield to it.

 

[mevertsen]

It was certainly federal land before a lot got there.

But I think where a lot of the ranchers and sheep herders have apt of heartburn is the Federal Lands Policy of 1976, and the Horse and Burro act.

History of the BLM | Bureau of Land Management

Our Heritage, Our Future In many ways, the history of the Bureau of Land Management is the history of the growth and development of the United States. The BLM was formally established in 1946, but its roots go back to the years after America’s independence, when the young nation expanded. At...

www.blm.gov

Ive never heard the mention of locals thinking they have special preference because they live there, compared to other citizens.

The sentiment is very strong that locals can manage the land better.

Whether the locals can do better or not in a larger scale? I dont know. But I do know local and state managed lands we have seem to be managed a lot better than federal lands. Im not sure how that would cross over in scale.

 

[Nick87]

in all honesty, I think all Americans want their Kool-aid and avoid reality. It makes us feel better to think, as we enjoy our privilege, that we are being screwed by someone else.

I'd agree with that. how's the blueberry?

 

[SAJ-99]

Those communities are laboring under the delusion that because they live adjacent to federal lands they should have special privileges, that somehow it belongs more to them than to every other citizen. It was already federal land when they showed up, now they want to claim it as their own. Should that federal land fall into private hands, they will be peasants looking in at the King's deer, rivers, pastures, forests, wetlands; all untouchable to them. You can't fix stupid, so never yield to it.

To add nuance. On a recent project I talked to a Fed employee. He acknowledged that most of the locals "hate the governement". Of course, government is a vague term and can vary but let's call it the Feds. He said the problem they have is the "Feds" may be the only willing buyer if they choose to sell. Many private properties are poorly managed and owners are land rich and cash poor. The LWCF is the mechanism by which the Feds can expand some areas in the name of conservation. You know, before, but not now.

 

[Southern Elk]

TRCP seems to be in board with it.

 

[Gerald Martin]

I am of the sentiment that locals certainly have a better handle on things than someone in a far away place.

I dont hate the BLM or Forest Service. I could see problems if our county actually had control of land because the population is so low, and the influences by very few people could sway thi gs way too much

State ownership and control seems best to me, with a clear transition and understanding of many needs.

Many include...

Fires
Horses
Roads
Wilderness areas, present and future
Land preservation guarantee

I hope this helps.
[/QUOTE]

Two things come to mind for me. I too agree that local knowledge is going to provide better understanding of the needs of specific areas. However, in my experience the local forest service managers were the ones who determined what projects went forward in what way, not folks back in DC. They got their check from the federal government but they were locals just like everyone else.

The second thing is funding for fires, roads, maintenance, etc. State and local governments aren’t going to be able to fund those needs from taxing the local populace. Without federal funding those lands are going to get disposed of.

I’m on board with the concept of making federal lands pay for their upkeep and maintenance through raising the cost of extraction royalties and fees to a fair market rate. Allowing below market rates for resource extraction that benefits individuals or corporations while offloading the costs of over site and maintenance to the American taxpayer is bad business. Unfortunately, the folks yelling the loudest about how much federal lands cost taxpayers are the same folks who generally oppose raising prices for commercial use.

 

[mevertsen]

@Gerald Martin

The fire issue is certainly the biggest expense, and biggest concern.

I also think a lot of the problems we have are related to antiquated fee schedules which absolutely cannot keep up with the costs of maintaining the land, roads and facilities.

Example from today.

I mentioned in a thread (not sure if this one or another) about trying to reach the local forest service office via phone to inquire about some campgrounds. I couldn't reach anyone.

I was in Elko today, and stopped by the forest service office.

The lady there confirmed the campgrounds in question and the road accessing them were open.

The cost for the campgrounds- $0

Now, I like a bargain. I do. I have no problem dry camping in an area. My wife likes to at least have something that resembles a bathroom. So we stay in campgrounds if possible, and we certainly have ones we prefer.

I dont know how its possible for the USFS to maintain the campgrounds, toilets, paint for the tables and grading of the sites, without even charging a fee.

A BLM campground about 50 miles away frok there charges, from what I remember, with my last trip there. One to the south of me about 30 miles (BLM) has no fee.

In contrast, the state park in the area charges $15 a night. Running water, nice tables, graded sites, showers, fish cleaning station. All stste parks charge a fee, and they are alot nicer campgrounds. Between the user fees and state annual budget, these items get taken care of.

I fully understand there are people that may not want those facilities, or maybe fewer needs, but there is no way the current fee schedules are sustainable for anything.

I guess a bit off the rails, but there are just so many intricacies to this mess, the BBB and the deficit increase, funding nightmares, all kinds of problems and possible solutions.

Unfortunately, I think we are at a point where no one gets a free ride anymore.

 

[Gerald Martin]

The free ride always has someone paying for it somewhere.

 

[WyoCoalMiner]

I’m on board with the concept of making federal lands pay for their upkeep and maintenance through raising the cost of extraction royalties and fees to a fair market rate. Allowing below market rates for resource extraction that benefits individuals or corporations while offloading the costs of over site and maintenance to the American taxpayer is bad business. Unfortunately, the folks yelling the loudest about how much federal lands cost taxpayers are the same folks who generally oppose raising prices for commercial use.
[/QUOTE]

A couple points of clarification. Admittedly I am biased and to some degree agree there are times resource extraction fees are too low. However, in a great deal of the west, MT and Wyo, in particular lowering royalty rates on Fed land deposits can actually boost revenue to Fed and State governments. Reducing the rate allows me to mine otherwise uneconomical resources. Lower rate but greater overall fee. It’s true and hard to argue that lease rates are anything but a joke. But the real revenue to the Fed is from the royalty and from the bonus bid. This is where the $100’s of millions come from not the lease rates. Additionally, maintenance and monitoring costs are largely borne by the operator not the Feds. We pay for all reclamation, veg and wildlife monitoring, remediation, etc. Administrative costs incurred by the Fed to manage our operation are largely reimbursed by the operator through a cost recovery system. If I want the BLM to review my request for a new lease. They will charge me an estimate fee prior to starting work. If their effort exceeds that cost then we lather, rinse, repeat. If this new lease results in the need for an EIS, they always do, I pay for that work through cost recovery and by hiring the contractor that will perform the work. That contractor technically works for the Feds but the operator pays that $3.0M bill. Reclamation bonding, at least in reference to coal mining, far exceeds the actual cost of reclamation. Example, my mine carries a $100,000,000 bond for reclamation should I go bankrupt. This cost calculation is determined by the State, for the Feds, not by me. My assumed cost to perform this same work is $57,000,000.

Just a couple points to consider when determining how fair or unfair resource extraction costs are.