Bullet point No. 2.
Which doesn't elminate land acquisition it shifts it from federal to state land acquisition. So my suspicion was correct. The concern isn't that lands won't be aquired, its that the feds won't expand their lands. Lands are secondary, federal control is primary.
My main concern is the section on Offshore Drilling. While his bill sounds noble and pure, there is no telling what it might end up becoming in reality. That is what we must guard against. Congress, and Rep. Bishop in particular, are experts at sleight-of-hand. At this point in time, we must simply be on guard and remain vigilant.
Comrade, this bill goes far beyond just the concerns about money and where and how and by whom it will be spent. It has the potential for opening a whole Pandora's Box of environmental nightmares. It's one more classic example of short sighted focusing only on short term gain for a special few without regard for consequences far into the future.
Could you cite the section that cuts $150 mil from land acquisition? Explain why you wouldn't want to develop more resources (through offshore drilling, research and education) to fund such a program. As to the $20 billion, I guess we could oppose any bill on the basis it doesn't address the $20 billion wish list.
What don't I like aside from cutting $150+ million for land acquisition, or devoting at least 20 percent, and possibly more, for offshore energy exploration, or admitting there are $20 billion worth of operational and maintenance needs out there already, but giving them but 3.5 percent, or making it a bit more difficult for communities to receive assistance?
To me it limits it to communities above 20,000.
Are you saying you believe that communities under 20,000 wouldn't be eligible for any money? I don't think it says that at all.
As for PILT and land acquisition, I was just noting that they were part of the measure.
I guess it depends on how you interpret the wording, EC. To me it limits it to communities above 20,000.As for the backlog, I was just pointing out that on one hand he notes how large it's become, but then only allocates a very small percentage. Frankly, Congress needs to tackle it with a direct appropriation.
which cuts out a lot of Western communities.
It doesn't cut them out, they can still compete for 70% of the state allocated funds. As to the $20 billion, I don't believe it is the purpose of the LWCF to fullfill that wish list.
Any expansion on your thoughts on PILT and the federal land acquisition clause?
EC, you're correct on the 5 percent, but of the 45 percent set aside for stateside assistance grants, 30 percent would be for cities with at least 20,000 residents, which cuts out a lot of Western communities.As for the operations and maintenance backlog, that should have been almost "$20 billion," not million. I've corrected both.
No, Bishop didn't get it wrong when he named his bill. He was just lying again. It was another political smokescreen of the kind used by too many of our Congress members. It's nothing but one more cheap attempt to pull the wool over the eyes of unwitting Americans in hopes few of them will notice the real motives behind their bills.
That's a net loss of 4%.
And a net loss of 4% takes you to "starving'? I don't think so. In fact at $2,000 a grazing permit, it doesn't even start to trim the fat.
And where in the world does the idea come from that federal agencies want to "change" nature?
Ah, but Comrade, inflation has eaten up 18% of the USFS income in the past ten years. That's a net loss of 4%.
And where in the world does the idea come from that federal agencies want to "change" nature?
Isn't it the developers and miners who want to change it?
You been smoking some of that Colorado Good Stuff?
those that want to preserve nature want ever more money to manage (protect it from developers and resource capitalists) it.
Rick, if it is already owned by the feds - the money isn't being spent for protection from developers and "resource capitalists" . By the way, are you not the consumer of "resource capitalism'?
In other words [your favorite pet phrase to twist something to your own ends], those that want to preserve nature want ever more money to manage (protect it from developers and resource capitalists) it.
The title is "starving" but in fact the Forest Service budget appropriations have gone up 14% in the last ten years. I find it ironic that those that want to "preserve nature" want ever more money to manage (change) it.
This is an article that deserves, and needs, much more careful attention from Traveler readers. Right here is probably the biggest real threat to every one of us who values the beauty of our public lands and access to them.
So Lee - I will ask again, where do the monies for those phones come from? The phone give aways measure in the Billions - no matter who's name we put on it. The grazing defict is in the tens of millions - assuming in fact the costs would go away if there were no grazing.
Are you sure the phone give away was Obama? Do a little research and you'll learn it's a product of Congress.
And thanks, Comrade, for doing a little actual research on grazing fees. Do a little more. You still have a lot to learn.
Upon further research, I will concede the grazing program nominally spends more to administer than it receives in fees. I say nominally because I suspect the "administration costs" wouldn't go away if the grazing stopped. Further, I think this is more a testament to the inefficiency of the federal government than anything else.
Huh? This telephone assistance program started in 1984! Who was president in 1984?
Snopes says: claiming that "the Obama administration created a program to give free cell phones paid for by taxpayer money to welfare recipients." All the elements of such statements are erroneous or exaggerated:
Anon's post excellently illustrates one of the greatest challenges we who support public lands and parks are facing.
To be honest, I had completely forgotten about Fort Monroe. It's far from where I live and there are so many other very pressing challenges to our parks and public lands that it was easy to let it slip from mind.
the data was overwhelming
Wild claims yes - most dismissed by the likes of the EPS - data no. Please show me "data" from an independent source that shows systematic and irrepairable damage to federal lands due to fracking.
Folks, I just started to research "damage from fracking" and the data was overwhelming. Of course, at the same time I realized that it is so overwhelming that no one open to being educated about it would start from a denial point of view, so I'll simply leave it to Eric to "do your own research". I'm not going to butt my head up against that wall.
I think Kurt's comment adequately supports my contention on below-cost public land grazing. Regarding oil and gas development, you say:
As to fracking and mining damage, you made the claim, you provide the documentation that they create massive damage and the cost of cleanup to the Feds exceeds Fed receipts.
EC, if just 2.7 percent of the nation's livestock growers graze their cattle and sheep on public lands, how much benefit is that $1.35 AUM charged by the Forest Service and BLM vs. the $7-$8 being charged on state and private lands providing shoppers?
Kurt, that "subsidy" is reflected in lower prices to the consumer. Would I prefer the government exploit otherwise underutilized land to lower the cost to the consumer. Absolutely. Same is true for oil and gas, coal, etc. Note, this is a far different "subsidy" than taking monies from productive activities and giving it to a select group of recipients.
Nov 5th - 11:25am |
For some reason my long Fort Monroe comment is listed under "anonymous." In fact I've been deeply, and quite visibly, involved in the struggle to save Fort Monroe for over a decade. Thanks. Steve Corneliussen (Kurt, if you fix it, maybe then just delete this reply? Thanks.)
EC, should the government lose money on grazing fees and subsidize a small percentage of livestock growers (supposedly just 2.7 percent of the country's livestock growers graze on U.S. Forest Service and BLM lands)?Especially when fees on state lands and private lands can be many-fold greater?
" The "majority" would rather get their handouts than fund the Parks."
Is that you, Mitt? Or are you talking about ranchers with grazing allotments or oil companies, hedgefund managers, or other similar partakers at the American Buffet of Subsidies?
Be sure to read the article today about starving land managment agencies.
It was Michaels suggestions that were way over the top and ecomically unsound.
Nov 5th - 10:29am |
It's great to see NPCA undertaking this initiative, great to see the Traveler supporting it, and great to see the comments that have been posted. I'm grateful for all that the commenter Michael Kellett does for national parks, and I'm glad to see commenter Lee Dalton say, "The really scary thing is that this list is nowhere near complete."
Unfortunately, national parks are not included in any of the sound bites flying around at election time.
Because for the majority it is not a priority item. If it were a priority item, you could bet it would be in every sound bite. The "majority" would rather get their handouts than fund the Parks.
"Seperate from your group for sure but squarely in the majority. If I weren't, people would be electing Congressmen that put a far greater priority on the Parks."
Two obvious problems with that statement:
1) EVERY poll taken shows overwhelming support for national parks by Americans of all kinds.
And if you were representative of the majority, the Presidential mandate over the past 8 years would be grotesquely different.
We're straying a bit afar from the forum. Again, have yourself a perfectly smurfy day.
" For you and Michael (et al)..." puts you off on a little island separate from et al [sic].
Seperate from your group for sure but squarely in the majority. If I weren't, people would be electing Congressmen that put a far greater priority on the Parks.