BrentD
Well-known member
You meant USFS then
Oh, the irony!
- Thread starter Big Fin
- Start date
Phaseolus
Well-known member
- Joined
- Apr 26, 2014
- Messages
- 737
USFS as opposed to State Forest Service? There are both.
grizzly63
Well-known member
USFS
Hydrophilic
Well-known member
I’m flying back from Michigan whitetail season and for what it’s worth my uncle was under the impression the DOI is one of the departments possibly being cut and he seemed excited about it and maybe semi supportive about disposing public lands. The other local folks around just went along with his conversation. He grew up hunting public land, he still enjoys hunting public land with us in Oregon, he complaints about lack of private land access now vs then.
For some of these folks they are so occupied with throwing grenades into the system they aren’t connecting all the dots, and it can be challenging to get them to.
BrentD
Well-known member
I am afraid your uncle is just one of very many members of the tribe that have such contradictions.
Willie said it first and best.
"He's a walking contradiction partly truth and partly fiction"
Wyoming officials joining the land grab force and an ex Wyoming AG sides with opposition. https://wyofile.com/federal-opposition-to-utah-land-grab-suit-cites-former-wyoming-ag/
Here is the government's rebuttal, which according to my attorneys is some good legal work. I've read it a couple times and though I know I am biased, the Utah claim and the Amicus Briefs seem to be a marketing pitch more than legal work.
And if you want to read/download a book with some great history on the topic of public lands and the Constitutionality of the Federal Government owning/holding public lands, I find this one to be the "authority" on the history of how we got here and the many pieces of law, whether legislation or court decisions, that have put us where we are today.
Our Common Ground by John Leshy (caution, it is heavy reading and to listen is about 28 hours) - https://amzn.to/4g4jgH7
And if you want to read/download a book with some great history on the topic of public lands and the Constitutionality of the Federal Government owning/holding public lands, I find this one to be the "authority" on the history of how we got here and the many pieces of law, whether legislation or court decisions, that have put us where we are today.
Our Common Ground by John Leshy (caution, it is heavy reading and to listen is about 28 hours) - https://amzn.to/4g4jgH7
Does the rebuttal go away with the change in administrations?
No. But, the legal team could be changed to the DOJ grounds crew.
BrentD
Well-known member
It will be. This is gonna be really bad.
Thanks to everyone for bringing awareness to this repeated attempt to steal our public access out from under our feet. It's kinda inspiring seeing knowledgeable people taking the initiative to fight instead of armchair experts spouting defeatist attitudes. Or to badly quote Randy- "Complaining without a offering a solution is just whining."
On a bit of a side note- I'd like to chime in on a few things here:
1- IL has giant solar projects because the state can get subsidies from the federal government for a "green" energy solution, and the state government leadership have figured out how to skim some of the money themselves. There's a reason we've sent every governor to prison. I might be more accepting of it if it included a necessity for native prairie restoration underneath the panels. Probably wind up with more damn fescue under it all. Luckily they didn't drain Baldwin Lake to turn it into a solar field like they had planned.
2- Gen IV reactors are damn cool- liquid sodium metal encases the reactor core and transfers heat from the core to a molten salt cooling loop. The molten salt picks up the heat, is removed from the nuclear side, and stored in another isolated system (non-nuclear) to be used to generate steam as needed. I'm still holding out hope for widespread acceptance of LFTR plants, but I'll take any expansion of nuclear energy I can get.
3- the "demonstration" scale plant has 3x the power output of the average coal plant currently being retired. It's roughly half the power output of the average remaining coal plants, and about the same as your average Combined-Cycle power plant (nat gas turbine with a secondary steam turbine to harvest the waste heat).
4- Nuclear energy has the lowest impacted acres per unit of energy, by a long shot. And none of those pesky carbon emissions on top of that. The only reasons I can see to not support nuclear energy is personal gain, or outdated knowledge regarding meltdowns, fallout, Russians, etc.
On a bit of a side note- I'd like to chime in on a few things here:
1- IL has giant solar projects because the state can get subsidies from the federal government for a "green" energy solution, and the state government leadership have figured out how to skim some of the money themselves. There's a reason we've sent every governor to prison. I might be more accepting of it if it included a necessity for native prairie restoration underneath the panels. Probably wind up with more damn fescue under it all. Luckily they didn't drain Baldwin Lake to turn it into a solar field like they had planned.
2- Gen IV reactors are damn cool- liquid sodium metal encases the reactor core and transfers heat from the core to a molten salt cooling loop. The molten salt picks up the heat, is removed from the nuclear side, and stored in another isolated system (non-nuclear) to be used to generate steam as needed. I'm still holding out hope for widespread acceptance of LFTR plants, but I'll take any expansion of nuclear energy I can get.
3- the "demonstration" scale plant has 3x the power output of the average coal plant currently being retired. It's roughly half the power output of the average remaining coal plants, and about the same as your average Combined-Cycle power plant (nat gas turbine with a secondary steam turbine to harvest the waste heat).
4- Nuclear energy has the lowest impacted acres per unit of energy, by a long shot. And none of those pesky carbon emissions on top of that. The only reasons I can see to not support nuclear energy is personal gain, or outdated knowledge regarding meltdowns, fallout, Russians, etc.
Similar threads
