The Republican War on Public lands has begun

It's obvious that Washington (state) can't govern itself in a "Republican" sort of way... Just like the majority/"democratic", majority of the "union can't handle a "Republic". It's all good! Gives you something to b*tch about....How does your gripe affect you personally? Are you being deprived of life, liberty or happiness? What's your dogs name, that's in this fight?

a reply to: CB328

Humm, you mean like how the EPA has been taking private lands of people based on the most stupid rhetoric from the Obama administration, using the "new re-written environmental laws signed and implemented by ex-President Obama" to pretty much "steal land from private property owners"?

For example. A California Park service employee bragging about stealing land from 2 WW2 veterans...


www.abovetopsecret.com...

And this.
www.abovetopsecret.com...

In the last link there is evidence excerpted that shows how much land will be "acquired" under Obama's new rules in just one county.

...
The County has determined that between 1,302 to 7,420 acres would have to be taken out of
agricultural production because of these reductions and new buffer requirements under the
Bay TMDL. The impact of these EPA-imposed obligations will be felt by the County in lost
tax revenues, directly affecting local schools and other core municipal services.
...

www.freshlawblog.com...

In essence, the changes that ex-President Obama made to environmental laws allows the EPA to take lands from private citizens as long as "there is runoff running through the land", and other similar outrageous "regulations" which has allowed the EPA to simply steal land from private citizens...

If these new republican policies help those private citizens whose lands have been stolen by the Obama administration and these citizens can regain their lands it would be nothing but good news.

It's so weird that so many Americans don't like nature and desire a cement landscape across the US. Well they are the same people who do not care one bit about how unhealthy the American lifestyle is.

a reply to: game over man

It's so weird that certain people are against private property and would use the excuse of "helping nature" to want to impose the most draconian laws ever imaginable"... After all, Hitler and the NAZIs had their own EPA and extremist environmental regulations (they invented environmentalism)... But of course today environmental extremists never see their policies, and extreme environmental views in such a context... Naa, instead they refer to "the evil nature of mankind wanting to have private property", they favor extremist environmental regulations, and dehumanize mankind in the most deplorable ways using "isolated examples of humans abusing animals" to then claim "all of mankind must be reigned in and we must put nature before mankind"...

I find it ironic that last night i saw an old police case file of a couple (actually it was 3) of convicts who escaped from prison, murdered an elderly couple in their rv, but when these murderous convicts saw the small dogs the elderly couple had, they took their time to take the dogs outside, fed them, and tied the dogs to a tree so they wouldn't be ran over by any evil men/women... Of course the convicts continued on their rampage against their fellow men... These murderous convicts cared more for dogs than for human beings... Luckily, the fact that they took their time to "feed and care for these dogs", meanwhile they torched the rv with the remains of the poor old couple, allowed for LEOs to capture these murderous convicts.

I don't condone violence against animals, nor releasing real toxic chemicals in rivers/lakes/land/air, but the "dehumanization of mankind in favor for extremist environmental laws", and using such extremist environmental policies as those imposed by the EPA under orders from ex-President Obama borders on insanity, and is in fact an example of "extremist environmentalism."

a reply to: ElectricUniverse

You said it very well.

I think one of the biggest illusions mankind has, is that we have a promising future.

From where I sit, I don't see much of a future when people don't treat one another as they would want to be treated.

It's one of the most simplest of concepts, yet one of the hardest to see followed.

originally posted by: ElectricUniverse
a reply to: game over man

I don't condone violence against animals, nor releasing real toxic chemicals in rivers/lakes/land/air, but the "dehumanization of mankind in favor for extremist environmental laws", and using such extremist environmental policies as those imposed by the EPA under orders from ex-President Obama borders on insanity, and is in fact an example of "extremist environmentalism."

I think your private property points deserve their own thread ElectricUniverse, but I wonder what you think of this week's repeal by Congress of the Stream Protection Rule, given your bold quote above?

Fortune

The battered U.S. coal industry rejoiced after the Senate voted on Thursday to repeal a rule that limited companies from dumping mining waste in streams, saying the move could halt the sector's decline.

acres would have to be taken out of agricultural production

You realize that's not "stealing land" it's restricting some of it from being used for crops. The owners still own it. Whether you agree with that or not be honest and accurate at least.

originally posted by: game over man
It's so weird that so many Americans don't like nature and desire a cement landscape across the US. Well they are the same people who do not care one bit about how unhealthy the American lifestyle is.

Agreed. It is weird. I think the problem is that not enough folks venture into the wild places of this great country. If they did, they wouldn't be so quick to support mining, drilling or paving over it.

I'll just leave this here.

Nice Doom Porn OP

You and your lefty ilk, go buy some land and conserve it.

Don't fall for the scare tactics. This is not some national park. It's public lands. Utah has public lands area larger than many states.

I'd give the option for the state to take ownership of some of the land for state park and rec areas. But really. There are many countries smaller than public lands in Utah alone.

originally posted by: Byrd
a reply to: Olivine

Hunters and fishermen and outdoor sports enthusiasts were particularly against this maneuver. I'm glad to see that they stepped up! These are sports enjoyed by millions of people, but we need good clean land (and a lot of it) for the animals and fish to thrive.

What? Those animal killing, gun toting, meat eating bastards!!!! This is just not right!!

a reply to: jellyrev

Right, this is the point. People are tired of the federal government taking all of this land. This land should either be state or private property.

One of Obamas last acts was another huge land grab.

www.dailywire.com...

Here is some of that article/

The land grab now puts Obama's total amount acres designated as national monuments at over 554 million, the most of any president. It also another example of an Obama land decree without input from the states and localities

The administration had been plotting this land grab for quite some time, and Sen. Mike Lee (R-UT) warned about it in August, telling The Glenn Beck Program that the locals are against the move because activities like fishing, hiking and hunting "would all be in jeopardy if the federal government says who goes where and when."

"I held a field hearing there last week," Lee said at the time. "We had a capacity crowd. We filled up the entire high school auditorium. We had 700 people in an overflow room. We had 1200 people show up in San Juan County to express their views on this, and I invited people of all viewpoints. I invited Secretary of the Interior Sally Jewell, either to come in person or to send a representative. I invited people from the Bureau of Land Management, from the Forest Service. Not one of them showed up. And not one person who was there spoke in support of the national monument.

This isn't exactly the stroy the OP is spinning, that the evil reupblicans are angering everyone over trying to reign in the federal governments land grab. In fact, it seems to suggest that the average person is tired of the federal governments land grab.

a reply to: jellyrev
You can already use that federal land for recreation, as an American citizen.

Are you ready to have Utah pay for the backlog of deferred maintenance of roads, trails and bridges on those lands? Since the right has dramatically cut funding for the Dept of Interior over the past decade, there is an $11 billion backlog of repairs/remediation necessary.
Not to mention firefighting costs. Is Utah ready to pay for those?

Did you know 90% of BLM land is already open to mining and drilling?

So I ask, for what purpose does Utah and its citizens need these American lands, other than to sell to the most connected bidder?








9

a reply to: Olivine

I have no issue with most of those roads going into disrepair. Most of them are likely roads to nowhere's.

What purpose does the american government need those lands?
Either side you take on that point there is no reason for outrage and doom porn on the subject like the OP is acting it is like.

There is nothing wrong with developing those lands, why oppose it?
Yea, I am sure the government workers love handing out leases for energy development, more than likely these government workers are of the persuasion of the OP.

The taxpayers do not need to waste money on this land, You have stated the federal government has wasted billions on roads, roads in areas of no population that likely don't go anywhere except to a camp or observation tower.

originally posted by: jellyrev
a reply to: Olivine

What purpose does the american government need those lands?

You are the American government. I am the American government. I want to hold them in perpetuity for the benefit of all the coming generations of Americans and critters. We need open spaces, whether we "use" them or not.

a reply to: jellyrevThose lands are where we go to escape the daily grind,where poor people can go to hike,fish and hunt.Many have archeology sites that haven`t been researched,Migration routes for antelope ,deer and elk.There are many reasons to keep those lands.Responsible use,yes,for sure.But tax payers from all walks of life benefit from having wild places available for recreation.

a reply to: ridgerunner

I live in michigan. There are plenty of places already, both public and private

Most people do not travel to utah and nevada to wastelands for outdoors.
I can see it now your average person in LA flying to utah to explore 20 million acres of wasteland. Paying large sums of money to go visit nothing, most states of size have great parks as it is.

I dont think city folk realize how large of an expanse that blm land is in the great basin

Sounds more like ivory tower socialist, lording over us plebs

The only people who do fly out there are deer hunters on expensive trips, ive had friends and fam who have done that.