Oregon Protest

[ShockTalk]

It looks like some of they guys in the Oregon thing are stolen valor guys. Pretending to be prior service.

Can't say I'm surprised if true.

[SHOCKvalue]

(Novel Warning)

On a personal level, I don't hold the USFS or the BLM in especially high regard. It sure seems like both are bent on ensuring that public lands are essentially and eventually off-limits, through a similar MO that one might use to boil a live frog, or death by a thousand cuts. In a couple of generations, the outdoor opportunities available to the public, on federal lands, might simply and literally be only by air (or maybe foot), over the vast, vast majority of acres held. The great outdoors of the American West will be something we tell kids about via bedtime stories, or while whizzing by such lands on interstates or major highways, or maybe by taking them to very limited portions of heavily crowded national parks (after you pay, and hop on a shuttle, of course). The great outdoors will be a picture, not an experience; not because they are gone, but because they are locked away.

I believe this slow death of public access is the thrust behind rescinding "public" lands back from federal hands, to state hands, although like most things not held as sacred by the left, this movement is mocked and it's merits dishonestly communicated (or crazy folks hijack the conversation, as in the news topic of this thread). States are incentivized to lure tourism and tax dollars their way; the federal government not so much. The fact that there's a large contingent of wealthy, particularly-inclined citizens in this country who count themselves as "outdoorsmen" but who really aren't (not necessarily talking about anyone on SN), that sit in their urban surroundings, believing all of the hyperbolic lies about how the forest and animals are disappearing, and thereby sending in large sums of cash to anti-access environmental special interest groups, is a regression for all of us as it pertains to public use on public lands, and the whole premise of "getting outside."

Shifting gears, the crucifixion of the logging industry is completely irrational at its core. The boreal forests that cover roughly the upper half of this continent start in the upper reaches of the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. There you will find that forestry is simply another form of agriculture. One which happens to have a physically larger crop, with a slower throughput time. If you don't get out of the Great Plains much you might not know it, but most of the land in these regions are harvested once a generation, much like wheat or corn, just in different timing. In the American West, as much of the land is federally-owned, the land is leased for logging. Logging in that context prevents unhealthy forests, and helps greatly in the control and containment of forest fires. Alternatively, the lack of logging or thinning on public lands is considered to be one of the main drivers of the terrible pine beetle epidemic that is slowly making the mountains of the western US look more like an arid version of Ireland - again, something you might not know is even a thing if you don't get "out of town", so to speak.

[ShockTalk]

(Novel Warning)

On a personal level, I don't hold the USFS or the BLM in especially high regard. It sure seems like both are bent on ensuring that public lands are essentially and eventually off-limits, through a similar MO that one might use to boil a live frog, or death by a thousand cuts. In a couple of generations, the outdoor opportunities available to the public, on federal lands, might simply and literally be only by air (or maybe foot), over the vast, vast majority of acres held. The great outdoors of the American West will be something we tell kids about via bedtime stories, or while whizzing by such lands on interstates or major highways, or maybe by taking them to very limited portions of heavily crowded national parks (after you pay, and hop on a shuttle, of course). The great outdoors will be a picture, not an experience; not because they are gone, but because they are locked away.

I believe this slow death of public access is the thrust behind rescinding "public" lands back from federal hands, to state hands, although like most things not held as sacred by the left, this movement is mocked and it's merits dishonestly communicated (or crazy folks hijack the conversation, as in the news topic of this thread). States are incentivized to lure tourism and tax dollars their way; the federal government not so much. The fact that there's a large contingent of wealthy, particularly-inclined citizens in this country who count themselves as "outdoorsmen" but who really aren't (not necessarily talking about anyone on SN), that sit in their urban surroundings, believing all of the hyperbolic lies about how the forest and animals are disappearing, and thereby sending in large sums of cash to anti-access environmental special interest groups, is a regression for all of us as it pertains to public use on public lands, and the whole premise of "getting outside."

Shifting gears, the crucifixion of the logging industry is completely irrational at its core. The boreal forests that cover roughly the upper half of this continent start in the upper reaches of the Midwest and Great Lakes regions. There you will find that forestry is simply another form of agriculture. One which happens to have a physically larger crop, with a slower throughput time. If you don't get out of the Great Plains much you might not know it, but most of the land in these regions are harvested once a generation, much like wheat or corn, just in different timing. In the American West, as much of the land is federally-owned, the land is leased for logging. Logging in that context prevents unhealthy forests, and helps greatly in the control and containment of forest fires. Alternatively, the lack of logging or thinning on public lands is considered to be one of the main drivers of the terrible pine beetle epidemic that is slowly making the mountains of the western US look more like an arid version of Ireland - again, something you might not know is even a thing if you don't get "out of town", so to speak.

First, I'm NOT any kind of expert, or even that knowledgeable about this subject. I also do not necessarily agree with how federal lands are over or mismanaged. I do want to gain more knowledge and like continued discussion in this thread.

You mentioned rescinding "public" lands BACK from federal hands, to state hands. Is this correct? Particularly in the west, I would have thought these lands as territories were owned by the federal government/all US citizens. As they became states, did any of these lands become owned by the states? Were some turned over to states, some kept in federal hands? I thought the Constitution allowed for the federal government to continue to own lands within territories as they became states. I would have thought this issue could also have been used (legally or not) as leverage by the federal government for admittance to the Union as state only if such state allowed the feds to continue to own certain lands. Not saying this happened, just that it could have.

Isn't the over governing of these lands a product of "who is in power". Seems to me that a lot of added controls over the years have been added by both parties. As all states are also "political governments" who's to say things would be any better. You turn a lot of the western lands over to 10 states, your going to have 10 different approaches. A few might be better, but even more likely, a few are going to be worse and it doesn't matter whether you're a tree hugger, logger, rancher, or family recreating.

As far as the pine beetle, I thought the main driver by far is mild winters and lack of overall moisture. The only problem I see is not logging the already dead trees (they have many uses) which helps prevent hot wild fires.

[wsushox1]

In regards to SHOCKValue, I agree with your premise in regards to logging. That being said. working for 3 years as a UFSS employee I can assure you that increasing access is one of the primary areas of funding for my position. Also, one of the things I feel like many people don't understand is that around 40% of government positions are funded through private grants. The past 3 years of my USFS service have all been funded through private grants and no tax-payer dollars. If you don't believe me I will be glad to send you the budget that paid for me.

There is no 'fool proof' way to manage the public land. That being said, there are few changes from administration-to-administration and from party-to-party.

[wsushox1]

As far as the pine beetle, I thought the main driver by far is mild winters and lack of overall moisture. The only problem I see is not logging the already dead trees (they have many uses) which helps prevent hot wild fires.

Mild winters are by far the main driver, but the proximity of trees to one another play a huge role in the spread of these diseases.

In the areas I have worked, the parts of the forest that have been most recently logged (in the last 200 years) are by far the healthiest and most sustainable.

And logging dead trees have many negative consequences to the environment.

[shocka khan]

(Novel Warning)


I believe this slow death of public access is the thrust behind rescinding "public" lands back from federal hands, to state hands, although like most things not held as sacred by the left, this movement is mocked and it's merits dishonestly communicated (or crazy folks hijack the conversation, as in the news topic of this thread). States are incentivized to lure tourism and tax dollars their way; the federal government not so much. The fact that there's a large contingent of wealthy, particularly-inclined citizens in this country who count themselves as "outdoorsmen" but who really aren't (not necessarily talking about anyone on SN), that sit in their urban surroundings, believing all of the hyperbolic lies about how the forest and animals are disappearing, and thereby sending in large sums of cash to anti-access environmental special interest groups, is a regression for all of us as it pertains to public use on public lands, and the whole premise of "getting outside."

Sorry to rain on your parade, but I am going to say that your comments about 'forests and animals disappearing' is probably directly related to where you live. In Wichita, you have a point.

In Houston, it is totally different. There is (was) a marsh recharge zone running from the ocean clear up to north Harris county. It is called the Katy Prairie and is situated smack dab between Houston and Katy. The area is full of swamps and marshes on a path used by migratory birds, including many ducks (the duck hunting was excellent there at one time, probably not today). Unfortunately, precisely because of where it sits, it has been a rather tempting jewel in developer's eyes. There have been land swaps and compromises over the years, but slowly the developers have been eroding the wetlands away to build tract housing. In my mind, the new land grab started when State Highway 99 (a ring road around Houston metro) was connected from US 90 to US 290. That opened up a lot of prime land for development (and ironically it also disturbed a centuries-old indian burial ground which got paved over in the process). I would have liked to see more of the land preserved, but chances are that's not going to happen. I'm guessing in another 30 years or so, the land will all be drained and homes will sit on those wetlands.

So there you go. Pave paradise and put up a parking lot.

Of course, it's easy to sit out in a semi-rural area (like the outskirts of Wichita) and wonder what the big fuss is all about. Lots of open spaces and land available so it can be built around. Unfortunately, the tradeoff between preservation and development is a very real problem in urban areas.

I believe that sometimes our differences are related to the fact that there are large differences in contexting between living in a rural environment and an urban environment. Most of us are in such a hurry these days it makes it even more difficult to imagine living in an environment that is totally different than the one you have become accustomed to.

While I believe your argument regarding soft-headed urban liberals has some merit, in my mind, many of these soft-headed urban liberals are really more concerned about what's going on in their cities and not so much as it goes for the rest of the country. Their biggest mistake is failing to understand that urban values do not equate to rural values.

[shocka khan]

Very happy to see that this standoff has ended. Levoy Finicum was killed in the raid. One of the Bundy brothers was wounded. I'm hoping that a jail cell will be the next 'room' they all will be occupying.

Freeloaders wantonly breaking the laws have consequences.

I'd like to see Old Man Bundy in a Nevada federal prison soon. He deserves it.

**Note that I had originally incorrectly described Levoy Finicum as the person who killed his father. It was actually Neil Wampler. He is also reportedly carrying a firearm, despite having served about 20 years for killing his father.

Levoy Finicum was mooching off the government by taking in foster children. He had no other source of income, but was paid $115,000 by the government to take care of 10 kids as he could not make a living on his Arizona 'ranch'.

Which brings me to another question: Why do people who are supposedly conservative invent ways of freeloading off the federal government like most of these grifters do (and Old Man Bundy)?

[_kai_]

Very happy to see that this standoff has ended. Levoy Finicum was killed in the raid. One of the Bundy brothers was wounded. I'm hoping that a jail cell will be the next 'room' they all will be occupying.

Freeloaders wantonly breaking the laws have consequences.

I'd like to see Old Man Bundy in a Nevada federal prison soon. He deserves it.

**Note that I had originally incorrectly described Levoy Finicum as the person who killed his father. It was actually Neil Wampler. He is also reportedly carrying a firearm, despite having served about 20 years for killing his father.

Levoy Finicum was mooching off the government by taking in foster children. He had no other source of income, but was paid $115,000 by the government to take care of 10 kids as he could not make a living on his Arizona 'ranch'.

Which brings me to another question: Why do people who are supposedly conservative invent ways of freeloading off the federal government like most of these grifters do (and Old Man Bundy)?

The stand off hasn't ended, and there was no raid. Those arrested were stopped in a traffic stop.

[kcshocker11]

The stand off hasn't ended, and there was no raid. Those arrested were stopped in a traffic stop.

So let me get this straight , they take over a Fed building and tell everyone they will hold out for years and then decide to just go driving around town. This is surely a made for tv movie.

[Kung Wu]

So let me get this straight , they take over a Fed building and tell everyone they will hold out for years and then decide to just go driving around town. This is surely a made for tv movie.

Well they had to restock on chew' tabacca eventually, didn't they?

[SB Shock]

Freeloaders wantonly breaking the laws have consequences.

Do you believe the same thing with Hillary if she violated the law?

Levoy Finicum was mooching off the government by taking in foster children. He had no other source of income, but was paid $115,000 by the government to take care of 10 kids as he could not make a living on his Arizona 'ranch'.

This issue just not relegated to him . It does seem that there are some who have figured out how to game the foster child and welfare programs in this regard.

Which brings me to another question: Why do people who are supposedly conservative invent ways of freeloading off the federal government like most of these grifters do (and Old Man Bundy)?

Your mistake is assuming these guys are conservatives. In fact there is nothing I have seen from there actions that would give them such a label. They seem to have more in common with the "occupy" crowd.

[SB Shock]

So let me get this straight , they take over a Fed building and tell everyone they will hold out for years and then decide to just go driving around town. This is surely a made for tv movie.

It was not really a federal "building" - more like a Federal rustic "lodge".

[pinstripers]

Maybe Bundy and Hillary can share a cell.

[Eric]

[shocka khan]

1. Do you believe the same thing with Hillary if she violated the law?




2. This issue just not relegated to him . It does seem that there are some who have figured out how to game the foster child and welfare programs in this regard.



3. Your mistake is assuming these guys are conservatives. In fact there is nothing I have seen from there actions that would give them such a label. They seem to have more in common with the "occupy" crowd.

In order:
1. Yes. I was one of the first ones to raise the server issue with Hillary on Shockernet. We'll see what the feds do. If they move to indict and Obama pardons, he's going to look like Gerald Ford.

2. True.

3. I think most of these guys are Mormon. This appears to give most Mormons a bad rap, but Bundy and his family are definitely Mormon. I'd bet that Finicum is also. Not that they're your normal, everyday Mormons, more like a jack Mormon (Mormon who practices polygamy).

Finicum's abuse of the child welfare program strongly reminds me of the jack Mormons who have 12 wives and assorted kids, all on public assistance, in a trailer-park compound. Note that the wives make enough off the public assistance that it pays for the man to live free. They even have a term for it, something like 'starving the beast' (or whatever).

Most Mormons, even jack Mormons, are extremely conservative due to their deeply held religious views. I have known a number of Mormons (not the jack Mormons) over the years and have found everyone of them to be hard-working, thrifty and they hold deeply conservative views regarding their morals. Jack Mormons more try to game the system, live a subsistence lifestyle distrust government. We had quite a large number of them in Texas (at their encampment named El Dorado) until their prophet, Warren Jeffs, decided he liked underage sex with, well, kids (12 year olds). He's now doing life in prison. Their enclave was around Ozona (about 50 miles east of Fort Stockton and 15 miles north of I-10). They are truly 'rugged individualists'. I'm sorry if I have offended you by lumping deeply religious rugged individualists in with conservatives, but strip their propensity to mooch off the government away and that's what you get. Jack Mormons almost remind me of the Posse Comatatus group that was found in Wisconsin, Arkansas and to a lesser degree, Kansas. They said that the US going off the gold standard was illegal, they refused to pay their taxes and when forced to pay them, used their own 'currency' or 'script' to pay as they did not believe the federal government had the power to tax or issue legal currency (since they believed that the US went off the gold standard illegally in 1933). They also were from areas that were primarily rural. I would also consider the Posse Comatatus to have been a conservative movement, not too far from what you might see in an extreme tea partier.

Most of the rest of the jack Mormon group live in southern Utah and northern Arizona, but it would not surprise me to see people in Idaho mixed up in this as well, as Idaho has the second largest number of Mormons per capita in the United States (behind Utah).

Note these folks I'm speaking of are from Arizona and Idaho.

Wantonly breaking the law has consequences.