Alaska wieghs in on BLM Problem....sort of...

originally posted by: diggindirt
The National Parks agency is part of the same federal government as the Bureau of Land Management.

Yes, we are all part of this same government so what’s your point?
By the way it’s National Parks Service not ”agency”. NPS

The problem in these cases is the loss of local control. Since the lands they are "managing" SHOULD belong to the states, the local people SHOULD be able to determine how those lands are utilized to best benefit the community.

No loss of control, not state owned but federal. These are our parks and should be preserved. States should NOT be allowed to determine what to do with these lands and this is the point of the National Parks Service, the preservation from states or companies from removing natural resources and building on these lands. Perhaps you should read some of the links I posted, I think you’re confusing NPS for BLM.

www.pbs.org...

www.nps.gov...

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Or in the case of Harry Reids son.....
Setting up a huge solar power deal backed by china, to utilize a patch of Arizona.....a large patch

Which never happened.

lasvegassun.com...

jacksonville.com...

a reply to: Devino
I never said the project was about Bundys ranch......
Did Harry Reids son work with China to parcel off a pile of BLM lands or not?

originally posted by: bandersnatch
a reply to: Devino
I never said the project was about Bundys ranch......
Did Harry Reids son work with China to parcel off a pile of BLM lands or not?

Are you asking me research and read the material for you? If you have something to add then by all means go for it. By the way if you haven't noticed already this has nothing to do with BLM land.

a reply to: Devino
The National Parks Service is an agency of the federal government. You do understand that? My point was made in the very next sentence. Their "I am God and you will do as I say." attitude is problem.
I am quite familiar with the National Parks Service. I made it my business to investigate them when they attempted to gain control of Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area. It took a lot of people and a ton of time and energy to fight them off.
Additionally I have several friends and former students who have worked for NPS in the past.

You are the one who is mistaken in your thinking if you think that the feds won't sell off our resources. Timber, agricultural leases, wildlife, anything to make a buck. Oh, yeah, they'll sell it off and do it in such a way to assure that no local residents get any of the benefits.
It takes more than simply visiting parks and enjoying them to understand the seemy, sleazy underbelly of these agencies. And more than simply reading their own websites to gain knowledge about their actual day-to-day activities.

Please cite constitutional authority for federal ownership of property other than Sec. 8 of Article I.

To exercise exclusive Legislation in all Cases whatsoever, over such District (not exceeding ten Miles square) as may, by Cession of particular States, and the Acceptance of Congress, become the Seat of the Government of the United States, and to exercise like Authority over all Places purchased by the Consent of the Legislature of the State in which the Same shall be, for the Erection of Forts, Magazines, Arsenals, dock-Yards, and other needful Buildings;—

Also please note that in purchasing land for the use of the federal government, Congress is required to get permission from the States.

a reply to: diggindirt

Please cite constitutional authority for federal ownership of property other than Sec. 8 of Article I.

Ok.

The Congress shall have power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting the Territory or other Property belonging to the United States; and nothing in this Constitution shall be so construed as to Prejudice any Claims of the United States, or of any particular State.

Section 8 is what is known as the "enclave clause", it concerns one particular classification of federal property but tell me, has any National Park been "stolen" from any state? In particular, who bought Alaska in the first place?

a reply to: Phage
The first three minutes of this video can explain it much more quickly and easily than I, a non-lawyer can do.
www.youtube.com...

She says exactly the same things that my first law professor taught me, that my best friend and running mate (also a Constitutional attorney) said and what numerous other Constitutional historians have proposed.

The only area in which I am not in agreement with her stance is the protest isn't about the Hammonds. I think it is very much about the Hammonds and the violation of their civil right to not be forced to endure cruel and unusual punishment. Mandatory sentencing must be overturned, reapealed---thrown out---shown the door.

When has the federal government stolen land from the states and citizens?

www.imnothere.org...

It's a lengthy document by a scholar in a scholarly journal. It is the story of a lot of my relatives.
I and my children were at the meetings the author describes attending with his children.

a reply to: diggindirt

The first three minutes of this video can explain it much more quickly and easily than I, a non-lawyer can do.

I've seen it. She's wrong.

When has the federal government stolen land from the states and citizens?

Eminent domain is the purview of the US government, as specified in by the fifth amendment. It is legal, not stealing. Like it or not.

originally posted by: diggindirt
The National Parks Service is an agency of the federal government. You do understand that?

Yes, it’s the Department of the Interior.

I am quite familiar with the National Parks Service. I made it my business to investigate them when they attempted to gain control of Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area.

The Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area is the US Forest Service which is a branch of the Department of Agriculture not the NPS nor the DOI.

You are the one who is mistaken in your thinking if you think that the feds won't sell off our resources. Timber, agricultural leases, wildlife, anything to make a buck. Oh, yeah, they'll sell it off and do it in such a way to assure that no local residents get any of the benefits.

I’m more worried about private companies than the Federal government. The reason we have these parks today is because of the DOI and NPS, I doubt State or private owners would have preserved them nearly as well, if at all.

It takes more than simply visiting parks and enjoying them to understand the seemy, sleazy underbelly of these agencies.

You seem to do just fine locating contention from your computer. My point of visiting our parks was to use them, as they are ours, and to experience these preserved areas. There is much to learn of the geological and anthropological aspect of the history of our country that these parks can teach.

And more than simply reading their own websites to gain knowledge about their actual day-to-day activities.

I am sorry to read that you have had so much trouble with the US Forest Service over in Kentucky and Tennessee but for the NPS it seems to work for more than 292 million visitors.

Total recreation visitors to the national parks in 2014: 292,800,082

Source

Youse all don't get the point that the federally proclaimed laws don't always seem appropriate FOR SPECIFIC LOCAL REQUIREMENTS (LIKE TRANSPORTATION IN THIS CASE)Where the river IS the only HIGHWAY....
Demands made by far away potentates can have disastrous local consequences at times....
The whole system is so effing top heavy its turning turtle.....
The USA was designed to be ruled from the bottom up.....not from the top down.....nuff said...b

originally posted by: bandersnatch
Youse all don't get the point that the federally proclaimed laws don't always seem appropriate FOR SPECIFIC LOCAL REQUIREMENTS (LIKE TRANSPORTATION IN THIS CASE)Where the river IS the only HIGHWAY....

I understand your point and agree that problems do pop up as this isn’t a perfect system. At times there needs to be some flexibility yet the rigidity of the laws is there to protect the original intent which was to protect these areas. I feel that we should address each problem as they occur. What would be the alternative?

It’s unfortunate that John Sturgeon can’t moose hunt from his hovercraft in a National Park, I guess he’ll just have to walk like the rest of us. I’m afraid the alternative would be to allow motorized vehicles inside these parks and this seems a digression from conservation in my opinion.

Demands made by far away potentates can have disastrous local consequences at times....

This is far from disastrous. Perhaps you could name one such consequence you would consider disastrous.

The whole system is so effing top heavy its turning turtle.....

That is your opinion to which I disagree. Things have been getting better over time yet perhaps this is a point of perspective on my part.

a reply to: Devino
I'm well aware that LBL is under DOI because "we, the people" forced TVA to hand it over to DOI rather than the NPS a few years ago when TVA proposed building a theme park. That's why I typed: "...when they attempted to gain control of Land Between the Lakes National Recreation Area." Hundreds, perhaps thousands of people showed up to foil their efforts due to the bad feelings created by NPS in the past.
People who grew up in LBL and the surrounding area don't have a lot of use for the feds at any level. They've made life hell for too many of us. We've learned not to trust a word coming from their lips and there is no level to which they won't stoop to get what they want.

I'm so glad that you get to enjoy the parks, the fruits of the labor, sweat and blood of those who were stewards of the lands for many years, in some cases, generations. The lands taken to form LBL were granted to men for their service in the wars for independence. The land had been handed down from generation to generation, being utilized, enjoyed and protected for the community. It was actually private citizens who set up the first wild turkey refuge in the Commonwealth, long before there was a Fish & Wildlife department.
Please explain to me how some bureaucrat in DC knows more about managing the wild turkey and white-tailed deer in western KY than the folks living here.
I sometimes try to imagine the look on Jefferson's face if he could time travel to today and see the progress of his and the other founders' grand experiment. I think the idea of a Federal Parks system would absolutely astound him.

My family's plot of land was granted to an ancestor for his service in the War of 1812, a piece of fine Tennessee River bottomland and heavily timbered uplands. The family took that bit of wilderness and turned it into a home, as did all the other former soldiers who came there to settle. For almost one hundred years our families worked the land and were stewards of the land because they knew they were handing it down to their children. It was bought with their blood, sweat and tears as soldiers fighting for the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.
It was indeed a prosperous community until the passage of the Eighteenth Amendment, followed a decade later by FDR's New Deal.

The paper I've linked above tells a more complete story and has citations. It delves into the cultural aspects of this social engineering. It gives a bigger picture than the "it's for preservation" mantra of the feds.

I'm an ardent supporter of good stewardship of the land and preservation of our natural wonders. One of my very first activist battles was to stop a dam being built in the Red River Gorge. That very battle started out a bit like the protest in Oregon. Except our "occupation" was in summer and when people heard what was happening they flocked from all across the Tennessee and Cumberland Valley region to join us. They came because they'd felt the heavy hand of the feds and didn't wish that on anyone else. So a bunch of high school and college students and professors joined up with a bunch of disgruntled land owners and fought off the building of the dam and development of the Gorge.
I worked with Abbie Hoffman when he was representing a group of disgruntled landowners in the Delaware Water Gap National Recreational Area. My Beloved's family was among the disgruntled.
So I continue to do what I am able to push back against the encroachments of a federal government. Abbie's advice echos in my head, "Keep one foot in the voting booth and one in the street."

I'm glad all your interactions with the feds have been pleasant. I hope you never experience being on the wrong side of them in any issue. I'm pretty sure that if those parks were owned and operated by the states, your visits would be equally pleasant.