Posted on 12/15/2007 10:37:06 AM PST by george76
The Senate removed a provision from the energy bill that would have extended for four years payments to rural counties that once depended on federal timber money to pay for schools and libraries.
A House bill approved last week would set aside more than $1.5 billion to compensate 700 rural counties in 39 states -- mostly in the South and West -- that were hurt by federal logging cutbacks in the 1990s. An additional $350 million would have gone to rural states through a program that reimburses state and local governments for federally owned property.
The timber plan had support from lawmakers in both parties, but was dropped in final negotiations Thursday as Senate Democrats ...
The Senate fell one shy of the 60 votes needed to bring the bill to a vote. Republican Sens. Gordon Smith of Oregon, Orrin Hatch of Utah and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska joined all Western Democrats in supporting the call for a vote.
All other western Republicans opposed it.
"Congress had a golden opportunity to do what's right for rural America, but they chose to turn their backs on our Main Streets,'' said Sen. Max Baucus...
"A minority of senators on the other side of the aisle are denying rural counties their lifeline,'' Kardon said. "In this case 40 senators supported President Bush in stiff-arming rural counties.''
"Without an extension of this successful program, schools will begin to lay off teachers and librarians..."
(Excerpt) Read more at dailymail.com ...
... the fed gov land that is just sitting there unused because logging isn't permitted currently. That is what this article is about, no?
Instead of blasting away with insufficient information (aka ignorance) as you have just done, come down out of you "city on a hill" and make an appointment to visit with a rural/forested county (with lots of federalized land in it) commissioner/supervisor and let him/her push back the frontiers of ignorance in you own mind on this subject!!!
Also, go back and re-read reply #29 so you can begin your re-education process with a little extra push. Thanks.
george76, can you briefly describe what "historical allotments" are--or direct me to some reading material?
I did find some good posts from Marsh2 a couple months ago, here and here, that I found very informative. I've go lots of learning to do (since I'm one of those city slickers, lol).
My thoughts were along the same lines as yours. Perhaps the federal government would be better served by simply selling off excess lands in the West.
Actually the land belongs to the people of those states, and should be returned to them.
That is not a task that could be completed instantaneously, so until the Fed Gov can divest itself of the land, management of the land should should be handed over to counties, and the counties should use the revenue generated from those lands as the people of those counties dictate, with all options on the table.
The Fed Gov took the land by legislative fiat and has no legitimate reason to hold it, since post offices and federal courthouses are usually situated in more urban settings.
If, in the future, the representatives of the people of the United States determine a need for the Fed Gov to own any of the land, they can buy it back through the same processes available for any other acquisitions.
Some of the rules that may be attached to allotments by the government against the rancher :
Wildlife
• Maintain all existing livestock waters and keep them available for wildlife use.
• Do not allow salt to be placed within one-quarter mile of water sources.
• Wildlife escape ramps would be placed in all livestock and wildlife waters.
• All new and reconstructed fences would be designed to allow for movement of mule deer, antelope and elk.
• Manage livestock grazing within protected and restricted Mexican spotted owl habitats to provide for woody and herbaceous vegetation necessary for prey species.
• Manage livestock grazing with northern goshawk habitat so that average use would not exceed 20% and would not exceed 40% in key areas.
• Conduct annual northern alpomado falcon surveys within identified potential habitat to track potential prey populations and to verify presence or absence of falcons.
• Protect nesting substrate of any northern alpomado falcon nests (if nesting occurs) from rubbing of livestock through appropriate protective measures (i.e. fencing).
Cultural Resources
• Protect known archeological sites by using management practices that would discourage livestock grazing within those areas.
Range
• Locate waters away from springs and other sensitive areas
• Salting and mineral locations would be at least ¼ mile from water locations.
• Routine inspections would be conducted to utilization level and monitor range and watershed conditions as prescribed the Terms and Conditions of each permit and Allotment Operating Instructions.
• Range analysis and production-utilization surveys would be conducted, as funding allows.
Water Quality
• The applicable BMPs would be incorporated to improve water quality during range and watershed improvement projects. As a minimum, utilize 22.1 and 22.11 through 22.16 as listed in the Forest Service Handbook 2509.22 (see Appendix C of EA) and Soil and Water Conservation Handbook, R-3 Transmittal, Effective December 3, 1990:
• To ensure that all project implementation contains site-specific BMP’s (best management practices) developed through the IRM process.
• To ensure that all new and renewed term grazing permits contain provisions for compliance with water pollution control and abatement regulations and standards under the authority of the Clean Water Act as an enforceable condition to those agreements.
• To do monitoring to ensure application of BMP’s as designed.
For more than a century, American ranchers across the West have depended on rangelands for their livelihoods and have devoted themselves to sustaining healthy landscapes.
However, the grazing operations throughout the West benefit more Americans than simply the ranchers that depend upon them. Well-managed livestock grazing accomplishes the following:
· Increases the diversity and productivity of rangelands and wildlife populations,
· Preserves open spaces and cultural traditions throughout the West, and
· Sustains the economies of rural communities.
http://www.beefusa.org/govegrazingpermitbuyouts.aspx
That's precisely like going to "Friends of the River.org" to become informed on all the abuses the commercial whitewater rafting communutty is enduring at the hands of thoughtless city slickers and our Multi-Level Government(s)!!! (only half sarcastic)
The truth just ain't out there afterall, because everybody that writes/says anything you can find at some link has some axe to grind or agenda to further!!!
Pretty soon it all boils down to: "Don't tax you... And don't tax me... Tax that man, behind that tree!!!" (except fer yew bossy, un-thinkin city slickers!)(wide grin)
I could not find a ‘balanced’ site even after several searches.
Lots of PETA sites that say eating meat is bad or Sierra Club sites saying that ranchers do nothing good for wildlife, water, archeological issues ...which is why I put up the first list that shows some of the government requirements of leasing an allotment.
We know, but lurkers may not, that ranchers, grazing folks, logging people also pay money .
I have to back up a bit. You posted about “vacated historical allotments.” I googled it and came up with a lot of your posts.
I’m trying to understand who was allotting what, and to whom. What period of history are we talking about (i.e. when)? And what changed? What was vacated, when, and by who? Forgive me for being dense. It seems you are referring to some sort of federal regulation but I still don’t understand “allotment.” And what is “BMP”?
LOL. I’ll take that as a warning to read cautiously, SW. In the meantime, the link did give some references for me to try to understand this thread and do some more googlin’ and reading.
You can ignore my prior post, george76... I should have read ahead on the thread.
SW: Long live Socrates! ;-)
I like those links that you mentioned.
“Land of Many Uses” was the motto for a long time.
Under Bill Clinton, politicans like Martha Ketelle vacated many allotments that had been active since the 1800’s.
One of their tricks was to say ‘no new roads’ in the title : which meant to try to close 50 miles per year of existing roads per forest.
This keeps hunters, tourists, fishermen, hikers, campers, families...off the public lands too.
The fire fighters then have a much bigger, more expensive, and more dangerous problem as these historical roads had allowed them to promptly and safely respond to a fire and to support any fire jumpers.
Their “ Timber harvest/allowable sale quantity “ section allows about one tenth of one percent per year available for harvest. That is less than...
A team of expensive lawyers would be needed to fill out all of the paper work. It might take several attempts to get it approved.
http://www.epa.gov/fedrgstr/EPA-IMPACT/1999/August/Day-06/i19922.htm
Thanks! I’ve read many of the threads on roadless forests, so I know some of that history.
I just found this long paper that has a good history (I’m still reading).
http://www.cato.org/pubs/journal/cj1n2-4.html
COMPETING FOR THE RENTAL VALUE OF FEDERAL LAND:
The Assignment of Use Rights and Their Regulation
Gary D. Libecap
It is impossible in this modern age to sustain a town and all of its civic services without some minimum threshold of population and economic base. As many of these communities are virtually surrounded by National Forest, they cannot expand enough to create a tax base to sustain their own services.
All the people who visit the Forests use police, emergency and road services. Yet the Feds pay little to nothing to support the services of their guests.
As for “allotments,” according to the Supreme Court in Union Pac. R. Co. v. Harris, 215 U.S. 386 (1910): “What is meant by ‘public lands’ is well settled. As stated in Newhall v. Sanger, 92 U.S. 761, 763, 23 S. L. ed. 769, 770: ‘The words ‘public lands’ are habitually used in our legislation to describe such as are subject to sale or other disposal under general laws.’
Starting around the turn of the last century, the federal government began “reserving” or withdrawing lands from the public lands (national forests, parks, refuges.) These are more appropriately called “federal lands.” The remaining public lands were administered by the BLM until 1976.
The first clause of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 (BLM) reads: “...in order to promote the highest use of public lands pending its final disposal, the Secretary of the Interior is authorized...” It was not until FLPMA (Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976) that federal government discontinued the public lands: “The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that the public lands be retained in federal ownership.”
Now, defining “property” is a State, not a federal function. Western property law was anchored in the Roman Civil Law (Equity.) The basis of this law is the rule of appropriation - that discovery, occupation and continuous beneficial use established a better right of ownership among men according to the maxim of “First in Time, First in Right.”
Ranchers used the public lands long before they were ever reserved, withdrawn or retained. They used them before there was a Taylor Grazing Act of 1934. They established State water use rights and ditch rights over public land, which were also recognized under the 1866 Mining Act. (The Court has also recognized a right to use forage associated with the water use right in the Hage case. Angus has even discovered an old federal law that recognized rights of way for cattle traversing the “public lands.”)
These are all valuable split estate private property rights in the “federal lands.” Wayne Hage has established this in Court. (See Stewards of the Range.)
The grazing allotment was originally recognized as a pre-existing interest established by customary use and anchored by split estate property rights.
Forest Service “Use Book” of 1905 or “The Use of the National Forests”, (subtitled “Regulations and instructions for the use of the National Forest Reserves”,) July 1905, p.22:
“The Secretary of Agriculture has the authority to permit grazing to the best permanent good of the livestock industry through proper care and improvement of the grazing lands. Grazing permits will be given preference in the following order; small nearby owners and then persons living in or close to the reserve whose stock have regularly grazed upon the reserve range and are dependent upon its use. The protection of settlers and home builders against unfair competition in the use of the range is a prime requisite. Priority in the occupancy and use of the range and the ownership of improved farming land in or near the reserve will be considered, and preference will be given to those who have continuously used the range for the longest period.”
Three types of grazing permits were initiated to control use of the resource and prevent over-grazing: three classes of grazing permits; A.) For those who owned adjacent ranch property (”small near-by owners”); B.) For those who owned nonadjacent property and traditionally used the public forest ranges (”all other regular occupants of the reserve range”) and C.) For transient herders who could make no claim to local property ownership (”owners of transient stock”.)
Section III of the Taylor Grazing Act of 1934 reads: “That nothing in this sub-chapter shall be construed or administered in any way to diminish or impair any right to the possession and use of water for mining, agriculture, manufacturing, or other purposes which has heretofore vested or accrued under existing law or acquired and maintained in accordance with such law.”
“Preference shall be given in the issuance of grazing permits to those within or near a district who are landowners engaged in the livestock business, bona fide occupants or settlers, or owners of water or water rights, as may be necessary to permit the proper use of the lands, water or water rights, owned, occupied or leased by them.”
According to Legislative History, Secretary of the Interior, Harold Ickes, during the Taylor Grazing Act Senate Hearings had stated; “We have no intention to...drive stockmen off their ranges or deprive them of rights to which they are entitled either under State laws or by customary usage.”
Allotments for many historic ranches are actual split estate property rights in the federal lands.
Thanks.
I hope that you questions are being answered.
Usually there are multiple layers of results when these politicans and lawyers successfully close public lands, roads, or water rights.
Sometimes, two small communities are connected by a rural, dirt road. When road maintenace is denied , then the two communities suffer greatly.
One result often is working families are destroyed financially, then Ted Turner and friends show up...
Well said.
Thanks.
That being said, Goal One is to abolish private control of (and profit from) those resources, in favor of government control (communism).
This battle is NOT about the environment. The ends, however, justify the means - no matter how many people die.
That a tiny town is untenable in the 'modern' age (an age where local government apparently needs to be bigger and more expensive than it was in the pre-modern age) is a pretty good reason for the people who live there to move somewhere else with a stronger economy if they want those services.
Which is exactly what most of them do, which is why those towns of a few hundred are dying across the country whether they have free land around them or not.
All the people who visit the Forests use police, emergency and road services. Yet the Feds pay little to nothing to support the services of their guests.
You're telling me tourists coming in and paying the gas taxes, the lodging taxes, patronizing at the restaurants and bars, supporting the local speed traps, etc. are a net expense? I don't buy it for a second.
” Nancy Pelosi always makes statements that, with us, the environment is not an issue, it’s an ethic, it’s a value. Which is a nice way of saying, “I love the environment, but not when it comes to our own businesses.”
in 1996, Nancy Pelosi and her husband and fewer than 10 other partners wanted to build a golf course and country club outside of San Jose, California, called the CordeValle Country Club.
They never followed the environmental regulations. The ponds were never built for these endangered species. For seven years, they also failed to file any of the environmental reports required by the California Fish and Wildlife Commission.
A 2004 County Environmental Compliance Report found all kinds of environmental problems on the Pelosi’s golf course.
What does that actually mean in practical terms? Did they turn around and build this habitat and comply?
No, they solved the problem the old-fashioned way: they hired lobbyists and they got the environmental regulations changed. “
You make the same error in judgement that the economic analysts made in the Northwest Forest Plan. It is not just one or two communities, in our case it is the whole county of 6,600 square miles that has been empoverished and the economy destroyed by environemntal regulations. Our entire economy is based on access to natural resources. There is no industry. When access is cut off, we have nothing else. We actually track the contribution of welfare and food stamp benefits as a plus to our economy.
Some of these communities have a substantial Native American component. They are not going to leave their traditional lands. Others are from families that have been there for five generations or more. They are not going to leave.
It will (and does) cost the public an enormous price to provide social, health amd safety services (entitlements) to many of these remote populations because they are unable to support themselves under the current economic situation.
Believe me, folks round here would much rather work in the woods than be barred from harvesting timber, mining and ranching by overzealous enviros.
You can try and dry up the communities. Of course the restaurants, gas stations and hotels will also dry up and the roads in the least populated areas will be the ones that we let deteriorate. Then no one will be able to visit our federal lands, but I think that is what the enviros want anyway.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.