• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Burn them! All of them!

What exactly is the issue? Letting the states take control of the land within their borders that is not a national park/reserve/monument etc. So what?
 
Horrible title for this thread.

Of course it was a nearly unanimous vote by republicans in favor of this, those pro American values pieces of shit! I can see it now, state government are short on funds, sell some land! They want to pay for tax cuts for businesses and high earners? Sell some land!

No thanks!
 
Trust Iran? Of course! Trust state & local governments? Hell no!

National Forests exist specifically so the trees can be cut down for lumber, replanted, and cut down again. These are not places designated to be national treasures for tourists to appreciate. These are places designated to be used commercially.
 
ivwshane said:
Horrible title for this thread.

Of course it was a nearly unanimous vote by republicans in favor of this, those pro American values pieces of shit! I can see it now, state government are short on funds, sell some land! They want to pay for tax cuts for businesses and high earners? Sell some land!

No thanks!
Click to expand...

So your argument is that the states should not have control over any of the land within their borders because they can't be trusted to use it the way you think it should be used?
 
I'm still trying to figure out what the title "Burn them! All of them!" has to do with the article that the OP linked. :hmm:
 
The article headline itself is completely wrong.

"Republican Senators Just Voted To Sell Off Your National Forests"

The bill specifically says this:

"resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions,
amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or
conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or
transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government
any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a
National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by
the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes,
provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue
and would not increase the deficit over either the period of
the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of
the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025."

I guess they missed that part. :biggrin:
 
cubby1223 said:
National Forests exist specifically so the trees can be cut down for lumber, replanted, and cut down again. These are not places designated to be national treasures for tourists to appreciate. These are places designated to be used commercially.
Click to expand...

That is already done. This has to do with allowing private businesses to exploit public land with unsustainable practices.
 
Good. Maybe the Democrats will learn to leave guns alone, maintain their majorities better as a result and be in a position to actually stop stuff like this next time.
 
Drako said:
"resolution for one or more bills, joint resolutions, amendments, amendments between the Houses, motions, or conference reports relating to initiatives to sell or transfer to, or exchange with, a State or local government any Federal land that is not within the boundaries of a National Park, National Preserve, or National Monument, by the amounts provided in such legislation for those purposes, provided that such legislation would not raise new revenue and would not increase the deficit over either the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2020 or the period of the total of fiscal years 2016 through 2025."
Click to expand...

Less concerning then. National Forests and National Preserves are meant to exist as environments that both provide habitat and resources over the long term. That said it still is very important just what exact land might get sold off. And some of that land depending on state needs to be given first purchase right to the Reservations.
 
Last edited:
irishScott said:
Good. Maybe the Democrats will learn to leave guns alone, maintain their majorities better as a result and be in a position to actually stop stuff like this next time.
Click to expand...

Do you actually think most Republicans are going to vote for Democrats even if they did that shit?
 
Actually this is still very bad as National Forests are not protected in the same way as National Parks and National Preserves.

While yes, its language does note that it's impossible to sell National Parks, National Monuments and National Preserves (which enjoy extraordinary legal protection), it leaves the door open to sell National Forests, Wildlife Refuges and Wildernesses. That's some of you and I's most beautiful lands on which we're currently able to camp, hunt, hang out with our dogs and on which a large portion of wild animals rely for their habitat.

Introducing the amendment, Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R, AK) stated, "When we have an opportunity to consider this amendment, a vote for it is really a vote in support of — as a priority of this Congress — comprehensive approaches to land policies to facilitate economic development, empower States and improve our conservation systems." The back story is that there's ongoing, and potentially unconstitutional efforts taking place in Utah, Arizona, Wyoming, New Mexico, Colorado, Nevada, Alaska and Idaho to see those states take possession of public land from the federal government, then allow the exploitation of their resources by private industry.

AmericanProgress.org calls it "…a losing battle that amounts to little more than political grandstanding to rally their extreme conservative base and feed an antigovernment narrative. Such bills contradict the majority of public opinion in these states, as well as economic realities and constitutional precedent dating back to the mid-19th century."

The senate's budgetary amendment to support this privatization carries no legal weight — it's not a law — but does signify a troubling level of support for the privatization of public land. And make no mistake, this is about privatization and resource exploitation.

Efforts to "reclaim" public land are financially support by special interest groups like ALEC and Americans For Prosperity. ALEC is primarily funded by ExxonMobil while Americans For Prosperity was founded by David and Charles Koch. They're funding an argument that, on the surface, sounds sensible — States' Rights! — but underneath, simply appears to be a land grab by private interests intent on resource exploitation.

SA 838 passed 51-49. Democrats unanimously opposed it, while all but three Republicans voted for it. The holdouts were Corey Gardner of Colorado, Kelly Ayotte of New Hampshire, and Lamar Alexander of Tennessee.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
norseamd said:
Do you actually think most Republicans are going to vote for Democrats even if they did that shit?
Click to expand...

I know Democrats had a majority in both houses and the Presidency not long ago despite Republican resistance. Then Obamacare lost them the House and gun control lost them the Senate.
 
I say that's fine.
National Forests are never "preserved" anyway.
It's basically just the government selling the wood for profit.
They leave 0 stands of old-growth trees and bulldoze old Oaks to get to the Pine.
 
PokerGuy said:
So your argument is that the states should not have control over any of the land within their borders because they can't be trusted to use it the way you think it should be used?
Click to expand...

Yeah exactly. Am I wrong or do you have examples of states protecting the environment and not choosing policies that lead to a quick buck over keeping our land in good condition?

Let's play out this scenario though, exactly why would the states need these lands? Exactly what do you think they will use them for?
 
Drako said:
Gotcha, so you are advocating burning at the stake a certain group of Senators. Seems reasonable. :whiste:
Click to expand...
He actually said ALL the politicians, and I tend to agree. Certainly I specifically agree WRT the Pubbies voting for this bill. Many states are considerably disadvantaged by the amount of federal land set aside, so the temptation to use National Forests for commercial purposes would be nearly irresistible, especially during lean times. Many of these forests are already only marginally sized for larger and/or more specialized animals. Also, these are (hopefully) old growth forests. Done correctly, these can be lightly logged with little or no disturbance - but profitability is low. Done incorrectly, these can be clearcut and take hundreds of years to fully recover - but profitability is high. Anybody believe that any logging will be done correctly? Anybody at all? Bueller?

I'm still not over Bush I proposing to clearcut 3/4 of our National Forests over five years. Politicians suck, especially Republicans. And Democrats.
 
Done right large National Forests can probably provide areas that can be clearcut, shelterwood, and tree selection according to how the areas fit in with the ecosystem and the worth of their vegetation. Clearcutting everything is going to provide short term gain for long term loss.

harvest.gif
 
Last edited:
norseamd said:
Done right large National Forests can probably provide areas than can be clearcut, shelterwood, and tree selection according to how the areas fit in with the ecosystem and the worth of their vegetation. Clearcutting everything is going to provide short term gain for long term loss.

harvest.gif
Click to expand...

OK, how is that "done right"? Please tell us.

Did you know that the lumber industry plants more trees than it cuts down? That there are more forest now than 70 years ago?

http://sharplogger.vt.edu/virginiasfi/faq.html
 
werepossum said:
He actually said ALL the politicians, and I tend to agree.
Click to expand...

Well I meant everyone who supported this bill regardless of party but all the other politicians basically deserve to burn for some other issue or paid off vote. So all can burn in the holy fires of immolation.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top