US vs AZ

[spook12]

Sagebrush clear up a couple of points for me please, is the wilderness land in question not owned by the federal gov? If so doesn't that mean that every one of us gets a say about how it is administered , folks from Montana, Colorado, and even some jackwagon from Arkansas. Is it not disingenuous to cite the constitution when it plainly address's the fact that all federal lands are to be run by congress? You dont have to like it but its right there in black and white .

 

[Ben Lamb]

To points 2, 3, and 4, the city workers from Tombstone were doing the same work they have done for the past twenty years. They used to go up into the Huachuca Mountains every Monday and Friday in a pick up truck with a work crew and clear out debris. When the work crew found leaky pipes, they sent up a maintenance crew is a six wheeler with a crane and welder and replaced the leaking sections. This was not a staged hokey shovel brigade, but a city work crew doing what they have always done in the past, unchallenged, but this time with handcarts and hand tools. So I don't think the guys in other states have any idea of what is really going on in Tombstone, they only think they know. Maybe the Forest Service should have been more consistent with their enforcement efforts during the past twenty years.

I agree, it sounds like you've got new FS personnel who aren't aware of pre-existing work being done. It also sounds like the City did this work on a wink and nod from past FS personnel. When you change out people, things change on the ground. The FS should have been consistent here, and not been as rigid as they had been. However, from reading the articles posted here, it's clear that there was poor communication on both sides which led to some hurt relationships.

I guess my problem is with point number 5. If the people in CA want to have a debauchery in their public parks, that's their business. If the people in MT want to declare everything outside of the city limits a wilderness area, that is their business. But please do not force your values on people in another state. I may not agree, but I will support and defend their right to self determination within their sovereign borders. If I lived in a state and disagreed with a policy, I have two choices. I can join with like minded people and cause change through the ballot box or I can vote with my feet and move elsewhere. That was the vision of our founding fathers, that each individual is endowed with rights, freedom and liberty. The individual cedes a limited amount of those rights to his state of residence to enjoy a civil society. The states cede a limited amount of their rights to the federal government to accommodate interstate and international commerce, the raising of a military force to defend the several states borders and common enemies, etc, as enumerated in the constitution. Nowhere does the constitution state that the citizens of one state have the right to impose their will over the citizens of another state.

Actually, the 10th Amendment does that to a certain point, which was the entire basis of the USO case. Interstate Commerce means that everyone's rights must be protected. Also, we are a representative republic, that means all federal laws are applicable to all states. If you don't like that, then secede from the United States.

In my opinion, people in the US fall into one of three categories. One category believes the federal government is the answer to everything from cradle to grave and the citizens are subservient to it. They think the federal government has the right to dictate what we eat, how we prepare it, what light bulbs to use and even the kind of toilet we install in our homes. Basically, the European socialist model. Another category believes in the rights of the individual, that states have the authority to administer as directed by the citizens within their borders and the federal government has a very limited role as specified in the constitution. The third category is probably the largest. This group goes to work to earn a living, comes home and spends time with the family usually in front of a television and really isn't concerned one way or the other about the form our government has taken. They are those that are swayed to vote by the other two groups. That's not a judgement, its an observation. I don't think the people in the first two groups will ever convince each other to change. My comments are not meant to insult or enrage the folks that believe the Department of the Interior or the Department of Agriculture should dictate what happens in our local communities. Rather, I would like to inform those that do not have a strong opinion and invite them to become engaged in the process. While the romantic notion of preserving large tracts of land in another state for all creatures great and small and for future generations to come sounds like a grand idea, it comes with a price. That price is ceding the right to self determination within your own state. The people of Tombstone are dealing with that price now. Without the interference of the federal government, the work would've already been completed. Now, we are four weeks away from the monsoon season which will create even more work and greater exposure to risk for the local community.

I think there's two kinds of people: Those who argue on the internet, and those who are much smarter than that.

The Federal Gov't is a partner, especially in places with large tracts public lands. You can either butt heads and not learn how to speak their language, or you can work with them and then when they exasperate you, you can go to your delegation, whom I'm sure would love to sponsor a bill to get rid of all public lands.

Here in Arizona, we have faced some harsh realities in the past decade or so. People are becoming more aware of the problems the federal government is causing in our state. Attitudes are changing and previously uninvolved people are becoming engaged and that is a good thing. It is my hope that people are at least willing to consider that putting the tag "wilderness" onto a proposal does not necessarily mean that it is instantly good for the local people and wildlife.

Previously uninvolved people being engaged is great, but are they learning the truth, or what some website or fake new channel feeds them? As for "wilderness" being good for people and wildlife? Read these reports: http://headwaterseconomics.org/topic/land

 

[azcoueshunter]

ouch my head hurts from trying to understand this mess! lol