Ruckus
New member
Well said Takaldahl2000, but be careful a new McCarthyism is right around the corner.
House natural resources furthers public land theft bills
- Thread starter Oneye
- Start date
WE already have term limits. It's called the ballot box. Voluntarily giving up your right as a citizen to decide who should be in office because you don't like who gets sent to DC means you should get more involved in democracy, not abrogate your right to select the best candidate.
Term limits have ruined Montana's Legislature. It has placed the vast majority of institutional knowledge, and process power with lobbyists rather than elected officials.
Term limits have ruined Montana's Legislature. It has placed the vast majority of institutional knowledge, and process power with lobbyists rather than elected officials.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
And career bureaucrats. (That can be a good thing or a bad thing, depending on the bureaucrat.)
Yep.
When I worked in Wyoming, there were legislators who had been there for 30 years. We didn't agree on much, but we knew where the boundaries were, what fights had happened, whose arguments were BS and what good governance looked like. One of the reasons Wyoming has only a handful of bad bills each year is that legislators have been there for a long enough time to not feel the need to tilt at the windmill in their newly elected fervor.
Nice editorial from the Billings Gazette calling Rep. ZInke to the carpet for his vote to transfer management: http://billingsgazette.com/news/opi...cle_46d6ca01-430c-5e35-a279-bb01a24c921c.html
Southern Elk
Well-known member
^Vote him out!
noharleyyet
Well-known member
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
“In a closed society where everybody's guilty, the only crime is getting caught.”
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
And gettin' caught ain't much of a crime if'n yer too big to jail.
― Hunter S. Thompson, Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas
And gettin' caught ain't much of a crime if'n yer too big to jail.
Ya, we can vote Zinke out, but why the hell did some of you vote him in? Regretting that decision or are you still happy with your decision? Just curious. I hope I'm wrong but doubt their is a chance in hell he get's voted out, not in a Red State like Montana. We love to vote these guys and gals in then bitch and holler after the fact, then turn around and vote them in again.
At the congressional and DC level, we've created a monster industry of revolving doors where legislators take 6 & 7 figure jobs after leaving office, we appoint insiders to key positions charged with regulating industries they've just come from and we refuse to stop insider trading among congressional members. The main reason that elected officials become wealthy in office isn't because we pay them too much, it's because we let them commit crimes your average citizen would go to jail for. If you're a banker, then you fit in to that same protected class simply because you can afford to purchase indulgences in the form of PAC contributions & bundled donations to candidates.
It's a scam.
It's funny. Poll after poll shows the American public wants to "vote out the bastards." Except fo the bastards they elected. They're ok.
Southern Elk
Well-known member
He's touting his no vote on his website. I didn't see anything about the yes vote. Imagine that.
https://zinke.house.gov/media-cente...bucks-party-leaders-and-votes-no-transferring
https://zinke.house.gov/media-cente...bucks-party-leaders-and-votes-no-transferring
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
I've seen T.V. Commercials in Colorado for Bennet saying he and his Republican cohort are sponsoring bi-partisan bills to prevent them from ever lobbying after leaving office. There is some other good thing they are proposing but I already forgot what is it (something about pay raises, I think).
Anyway, I think, if this is true, that they are finally getting a message sent by Sanders and Trump supporters: "It ain't about Sanders or Trump: it's about how much we Fking hate you and your Fking Parties and maybe we aren't Fking around this time. You better get your ass out in front of front of this S now or you will find your ass on the street. Biatches!"
Well, we'll see if they get anywhere with it. Probably not. Probably die in some committee or get lost to a new national emergency spun up by their real owners. Then, next time they are up for election they will be able to tell us how they tried to do the right thing, "But gee, the forces were aligned against us." More shuck and jive. But yeah, voters will fall for it and vote them back in again.
Here's the deal: All of these people actually, sincerely, deeply believe that they do more good than harm if only by tempering the bad, making it less bad, just by their mere presence. You know, because they mean well. They know they are good at heart, right?
Now, I'm no big fan of the old Japanese but when it comes to politics, there is something to be said for falling on one's sword. These guys should either kill themselves or, at the very least, do the right thing regardless of the odds they face, and do it to the point where they lose their office with their head held high. Fk the parties.
How's that for a bumper sticker: "Fk the Parties!"
Sorry, end rant.
Anyway, I think, if this is true, that they are finally getting a message sent by Sanders and Trump supporters: "It ain't about Sanders or Trump: it's about how much we Fking hate you and your Fking Parties and maybe we aren't Fking around this time. You better get your ass out in front of front of this S now or you will find your ass on the street. Biatches!"
Well, we'll see if they get anywhere with it. Probably not. Probably die in some committee or get lost to a new national emergency spun up by their real owners. Then, next time they are up for election they will be able to tell us how they tried to do the right thing, "But gee, the forces were aligned against us." More shuck and jive. But yeah, voters will fall for it and vote them back in again.
Here's the deal: All of these people actually, sincerely, deeply believe that they do more good than harm if only by tempering the bad, making it less bad, just by their mere presence. You know, because they mean well. They know they are good at heart, right?
Now, I'm no big fan of the old Japanese but when it comes to politics, there is something to be said for falling on one's sword. These guys should either kill themselves or, at the very least, do the right thing regardless of the odds they face, and do it to the point where they lose their office with their head held high. Fk the parties.
How's that for a bumper sticker: "Fk the Parties!"
Sorry, end rant.
The bill will die.
Or, as in the case of the STOCK Act, they'll wait until you aren't looking and tell you they were just fooling: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ss-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law
Or, as in the case of the STOCK Act, they'll wait until you aren't looking and tell you they were just fooling: http://www.npr.org/sections/itsallp...ss-quietly-overhauled-its-insider-trading-law
Irrelevant
Well-known member
An opinion piece by Zinke... he uses some strong language
http://www.glasgowcourier.com/story...d-never-will-sell-your-public-lands/3890.html
http://www.glasgowcourier.com/story...d-never-will-sell-your-public-lands/3890.html
TrickyTross
Active member
What am I missing in HR 2316? I have found nowhere the actual verbiage of ownership being transferred from federal to state. The Forest Demonstration would be huge in the Pisgah-Nantahala NFS in -WNC. Especially if it was the North Carolina Wildlife Resource Commission who manage it. Currently, their (-NCWRC controlled) lands are the best for wildlife habitat in our area. All I see is a minimum of 200,000 acres to be managed by a committee appointed by the governor. Be great here, but wilderness here is not what it is in the West. I guess my experience thus far with our Plan Revision has made me align even more with what one of the founders of the RMEF said on Randy's podcast about preservation vs. Conservation. In the Southern Apps, preservation is what is pushed.
Honestly just asking. It may not be best for your state and the federally managed land in your backyard... Just so you guys do not think I am a nut job trying to steal federal lands, please visit http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/home/?cid=fseprd491137 and look over the inventories. Look over the assessments.
Honestly just asking. It may not be best for your state and the federally managed land in your backyard... Just so you guys do not think I am a nut job trying to steal federal lands, please visit http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/nfsnc/home/?cid=fseprd491137 and look over the inventories. Look over the assessments.
TrickyTross
Active member
Also, I am a huge fan of the Forest Resilience Act of 2015. Hope it passes the Senate. Only pro active bill that addresses the wildfire issues in regards to fuel load, as well as actual management. Now, if we could get wildfires designated as natural disasters, we would about have it whipped......
BuzzH
Well-known member
The bolded part is a huge problem and potential stumbling block for this idea.
I am not partial to letting the "locals" control everything that happens on Federal Lands. IMO, the locals already have a disproportionate amount of influence, or at the least, much more influence than those living several states away from Federal Lands.
I hear this all the time, that D.C. is forcing decisions, but IMO/E, its largely an over-played hand. Sure, there is policy that must be adhered to that YOUR congress has demanded and made law. But, there is a lot of flexibility, at the local level, where those living closest the land can have their say...and largely get their way. I've seen it happen, countless times. Plus, another thing that not many consider, the local District Rangers ARE not living in D.C. They live in the very communities that are closest to the Federal Lands they manage. The locals have much better access to the local FS leadership and have a lot more influence.
The problem with getting local input is:
1. It doesn't happen as much as people think. The locals like to bitch about things, but I attend plenty of meetings and there just aren't that many "concerned" locals that show up.
2. When locals do show up, and don't get 100% of what they want, then the FS and D.C. is "forcing management". News flash, you and your concerns are not the ONLY concerns that the FS is mandated to address legally, as well as within the local community.
3. No local FS office can address every concern and make everybody happy...wont happen, ever. Some people live in the delusional world that every acre of Federal land has to have rock climbing, motorized access, backcountry attributes, timber production, oil and gas development, to fit in the "multiple use" vision they have. Its not going to happen, and even in the case of relatively large acreages, up the size of a Ranger District, or perhaps even a NF, getting all those "multiple use" visions implemented and satisfied could be impossible.
I'm not keen on an advisory committee being made up of Governor appointed "experts" to manage my land. We're going through this right now in Wyoming with the Wyoming Public Lands Initiative. The County Commissioners are supposed to have a sportsmens representative on their committees. But, they get to choose who that is. In the case of Park County, the sportsmens representative is also an outfitter and rancher...hardly the person I want representing me, as a sportsmen, in Park County.
Plus, any advisory committee appointed via politics, is never going to have the expertise that land managers have. Its a biased committee from the get go. Then there are also the legal ramifications of Federal Policy, that even if the committee wants to ignore, they simply cant.
This whole state managing federal lands sounds like a good idea, but its not.
A much better approach would be to start getting the locals to meetings, start sitting down with the local Federal Land managers. Tell them what you would like to see, but realize that you aren't going to get everything you want...isn't going to happen. Be willing to start the dialogue, "win" what you can, learn to compromise, establish relationships, realize that both sides of opposing views have certain things they wont compromise on. Establish that out of the gate, work on solutions together on the stuff you all agree on.
Finally, to implement management, demand that Congress FUND management. Congress has done a great job of ham-stringing Federal Land Management by cutting off the money. Management costs money, and no Federal Land Management agency can implement needed management for free.
I do not believe that this idea of handing management of Federal Lands to a political appointed committee of "locals" to manage is a good idea. Its bound to fail from the get-go, for all kinds of reasons.
James Riley
Banned
- Joined
- Jan 10, 2015
- Messages
- 1,821
Funding: Yes. It's a tactic of some politicians to de-fund or under-fund an agency and then complain about how incompetent that agency is and how it fails in it's mission; thus it should be de-funded or under-funded. Not just DOI and DOA, but IRS, EPA and etc.
As to committees, you should be a diplomat. I don't think I've ever read the truth in such a polite, if not understated manner.
The Donald Trump in me calls such committees unmitigated Bull Shit.
TrickyTross
Active member
As one of the locals who show up to the meetings, I fully understand what you are saying. But as a local who goes to the meetings and knows that management can occur within the confines of NEPA, I think there could be a better solution. as far as locals "bitching", my experience is that congress has confined what the federal land managers can do. Budget restrictions ate hardly ever addressed by either side of the argument.
Could there be issues with governor appointed committees? Sure. Every day there is a biased committee somewhere appointed by a biased individual. But couldn't the committee be appointed kind of like how they do the Stakeholders Forums? Multiple organizations who represent the forest users?
I don't live in a fantasy world where I think the Feds are just gonna manage for me. Never alluded that I do. But I do know that was has been occurring is not conservation. 70% of the forest is 70 years or older. 0.2 Harvest per square mile on federally managed land here. Might not work in Wyoming, but in NC, it's the closest thing to a solution that has been offered.
Feel free to click on my links in my previous post. Look at the new objectives that took 4 years to get.
What do you propose happens to address the management concerns? What can happen to fix the budget?
Similar threads
