National Monuments

>>1088126
bump

Nothing I can really do about it personally.
Hope he fucks off.

Those monuments and lands are all racist and oppressive and must be torn down because they were declared (stolen) by whitey

>>1088160

@SecretaryZinke Uphold Roosevelt's legacy and support keeping #NationalMonuments protected for future generations. #PublicLandsProud

You're right, it isn't much. But to me, it's worth the c/p and few clicks it takes. Maybe not to you, and that's ok too.

>>1088162

I don't think you understand what monument means in this context. Also, if you tear down land, isn't there just more land underneath? Where I'm from we just call that digging.

File: fed-lands-map.png (504KB, 1200x900px) Image search: [Google]

504KB, 1200x900px

The only land the Feds are supposed to own are military bases, federal bldgs, post offices etc. Look at the map of the west that the feds own. It's almost the entire state of Nevada. So why then? Is it for parks and hiking places? No. The sell the timber. The green light open pit mines. They manage monuments for tourist dollars. I live in Alaska and have seen this first hand.

Give the land back to the states.

>>1088200
Why? So the states can sell it to the highest bidder?

>>1088126
I'll reserve final judgement until I see the exact changes proposed. Zinke is an /out/doors man (or at least tries to sell himself as one) and he's on record supporting at least some protections for public land. Trump probably wants the monuments gone so whatever we end up is rather tame compared to what we could have got if he'd appointed someone other than Zinke.

>>1088200
States lack the resources to manage it on their own. They'd probably end up selling it off to private parties. You're naive if you think private parties aren't going to make giant pit mines or clear cut forests. The Government isn't the best owner but they're a hell of a lot better caretakers than most of those private parties would be.

File: 1500075316819.jpg (103KB, 728x810px) Image search: [Google]

103KB, 728x810px

>>1088200
>give it back to the states so they can cut down all the national forests

>>1088209
>Why? So the states can sell it to the highest bidder?
Like the feds do?
>>1088211
>States lack the resources to manage it on their own
They do it in my state. They even manage it better. And I like the money they make stays in our state.
>>1088212
Google satellite southeast Alaska. You see the lines running through the land, logging roads, they lead to the light green areas. Those light green places are areas they logged.

>>1088220
>They do it in my state. They even manage it better. And I like the money they make stays in our state.
They manage the parts of the state that aren't federal land. Turning it over to the states would in most cases more than double the work of the state agencies responsible for land management in the western US and its unlikely they'd get double the current funding for their work. Significantly more responsibility with the same level of funding is not a recipe for success.

>>1088211

This retard thinks private property owners can do whatever they want with property

>>1088255
The counties are going broke with 75% or more of the land in Federal ownership they get no property tax. Any sale of this land would help people living in these areas or this who want to buy property and would be a huge benefit to local government

>Give the land back to the States

This implies that it was taken from the states, but in reality the majority of contested federal land in the Western states was placed under federal trust before many of the states were even states. In fact many Western states couldn't even have been formed without the land surrendered to the Federal government after the war with Mexico.

So you say "Give the land to the States" not "Give the land back to the States".

Just clarifying for future posters.

>>1088281
>but in reality the majority
A majority would mean that it is over 50% and there is a minority also.
>So you say "Give the land to the States" not "Give the land back to the States".
It would be either if there was 2 factions, a majority and a minority.

>>1088295
It's way over 50%. You should read up on the history of westward expansion sometime.

File: federal_lands.jpg (598KB, 1938x1592px) Image search: [Google]

598KB, 1938x1592px

>>1088298
this is correct. 100% of western land was federal land prior to any western state or territory's existence on that land.

Even after states were formed the feds maintained ownership of the land and handed it out for interesting things such as homesteading, mining claims and patents, and indian reservations.

the feds continue to own significant fractions of the west. The states never owned this land.

So if the Federal government couldn't legitimately own that land, we have to give pretty much everything west of the Appalachians back to Mexico, France or the injuns.

>>1088321
Wait, wait, I have an idea!

We give it to the states, they sell it to the Indians, they Indians pay for it with loaned money they can't pay back and then the federal government supports them!

Perfect, right?

>>1088323
Indians are already buying up much of the west with their sweet sweet casino dosh.

>>1088212
>>1088209

Here in PA the DCNR and Game Commission have bought over 1.5 million acres of private land and opened them up as state game lands

Feels good living in a non-cucked state

>>1088200
>I don't actually know the law

>>1088200
source on this map? I want to find a more detailed one of the fed lands in my state

>>1088200
What do you think the states are going to do with it? Exactly the same thing, or instead of leasing it, they'll just outright sell it off.

The movement to eliminate federal lands has nothing to do with empowering states, it's just a push to line the pockets of a handful of already rich people.

>>1088211
This.

There's land that was purchased by people from my own, and surrounding, towns in the 30s and they gave the deed to the federal government so they could take care of it after abuse of the land caused several floods that killed a few people and ruined homes. It's definitely better that the Feds have some kinds land because they're the ones with the resources to keep it managed. The only place where It can hurt locally is the revenue from property tax going towards education. Everything else is just a chance for a state to have it's own personalized advertisements about why people should go there to see the pretty trees and rocks.

>>1088200
>The only land the Feds are supposed to own are military bases, federal bldgs, post offices etc.

is this your personal opinion or stated policy?

i really have no problems with the feds owning land since they will take better care of it than people will

>>1088598
his personal opinion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antiquities_Act

>>1088273

Congressman Chaffetz plz.

>>1088594
>Property taxes

I'm not sure about other agencies but the Nationa Park Service pays a kind of property tax. It's called something else but it's basically the same.

>>1088614
Wrong!

>>1088598
Google what land can the Feds own constitutionally. I was going to reply to the people who still think Alaska is a territory but I'm positive they don't either live in the USA or think Alaska is a territory and not a state. The last POTUS created a park in Utah upon leaving against the will of the people who live there, there was a poll. I drive by the local Jeep dealer the other day and the Forest Service bought 4 new white Jeep Rubicon's. It's funny because locals pointed out that the forest service does not allow off roaming on "their" property and we don't even have any dirt roads on Forest Service land. I see the waste.

>>1088655
>roaming
Roading

>>1088572
>The movement to eliminate federal lands has nothing to do with empowering states, it's just a push to line the pockets of a handful of already rich people.

It's also a pointless issue to rile up anti-government idiots who routinely vote against their own interests.

>>1088655
Nobody in this thread thinks Alaska is still a territory.

>>1088655
The National Forests have hundreds (if not thousands) of miles of off-road trails for Jeeps. You have no fucking clue what you're talking about.

>>1088655
Wait you drove by a local Jeep dealership the other day just at the same time the FS was buying four vehicles and saw it happen from the road? Or you did you go to the dealership, get out of your car and stand there to watch them?

>>1088655
Also what National Forest are you talking about?

And do you have a link to the poll about Utah?

>>1088658
The movement to eliminate federal lands has nothing to do with empowering states, it's just a push to line the pockets of a handful of already rich people.

It's also a pointless issue to rile up anti-government idiots who routinely vote against their own interests.
im not even green texting these because they basically sum it up. rich guys are tricking people into giving up their birthright for free so they can make money. federal land is your land. the national parks and monuments are your birthright.

>>1088674
No it's about raising money for the government and providing unused land to the people. You are obviously a government parasite who would lose his job if the land were returned to the people

>>1088684
And you're obviously a paid shill for some land developer.

>>1088634
Payments in Lieu of Taxes" (PILT) are Federal payments to local governments that help offset losses in property taxes due to non-taxable Federal lands within their boundaries.

https://www.doi.gov/pilt

>>1088710
Fake news
MAGA

So anyway this land that is being taken away from the national monuments (likely for development) is land that is freely accessible to the public for /out/ing. The idea of public land is that it is held in a trust for the people. It is to preserve wildlife habitat and untrammeled wilderness. I hunt on public land and I don’t want to lose it.

>>1088712
It is fake, hey we will give you $50,000 (subject to conditions) to offset the $50 million you won't get because we own 75% of your county

>>1088710
Less than $1 per acre per year. I pay $1400 for a quarter acre

>>1088731
>>1088735
Link.

https://www.doi.gov/pilt

$460 million PLIT/700 million acres

OK, so let's work this through then.
The Federal Government does not pay equal to property tax on public lands within states/counties.

So the solution is to give the land to the states. But the states cannot afford to maintain the land, so they have to sell it for property tax revenue.

So private entities buy the land, but in order to make back their investment and pay their taxes they'll log mine, develop or charge use for the land. Which means that actual access to the land by the people won't increase from where it is, and in all likelihood would decrease.

That's not actually "giving the land back to the people" that's just selling public land to private interests.

Which is all this is really about, making money. The folks behind the abolishment of federal land don't give a flying fuck about "the people" they just give a fuck about the money.

Granted the government is often pretty bad at giving a fuck about the people, but at least I have the right and ability to participate in government. Under private ownership, I would have no say in what happens to that land.

>>1088756
Starwman strawman atrawman

Why do you want to sell to stripminers? Sell it to the the people 1 to 5 acre lots. 10 million 5 acre lots is less than 10% of federal land and would yield more than 2 billion in property taxes or four times more than PILT for all the government land.

>>1088661
>>1088663
I live in a landlocked, no roads out, town in Southeast Alaska. When a FS vehicle shows up at the local dealer they put the USFS stickers on it and turn it loose. These Jeeps will not leave here and the biggest complaint mostly was that they weren't stripper no options Jeeps but Rubicons.

>>1088805
And then we have 500,000,000 fewer acres of land for everyone else to use. Hooray!

>>1088808
I've lived in SE Alaska, what National Forest are you talking about?

>>1088816
>SE Alaska
>national forest
It has to be Tongass, doesn't it?

>>1088805
You actually know what strawman means.

Besides, your "solution" still cuts public access to this land and opens it up to developers.

Just stop pretending you're some kind of hero for the down-trodden, it's a money making scheme pure and simple.

>>1088816
>>1088821
Yes. It's the only one.

>>1088822
Sorry, You DON'T actually know what strawman means.

>>1088808
Dude, just say you live in Juneau.

>>1088808
>These Jeeps will not leave here

This bullshit. I lived in Skagway and frequently saw USFS and NPS vehicles on the AMH ferries.

>>1088813
It doesn't work that way 99% of public land is never used by the public which you would know if you lived n the west

>>1088822
I guess it bugs you that I care about middle class people since they are Enemy number 1 of our oppressive government

>>1088833
So why would someone want to buy 5 acres of useless desert and then pay property taxes on it?

>>1088833
I do live in the west. I spend a large amount of my free time in national forest (granted, typically on trails or forest roads).

I'm aware that people don't often bushwack into the depths of the middle of nowhere. Guess what. Not many people are going to want to buy that inaccessible land either.

>>1088836
Why do you insist the government own useless land?

>>1088835
Empty, meaningless words. You don't give a fuck about the middle class, you're just here to push a money making scheme for private interests.

>>1088838
You're evading the question.

>>1088841
And you hate private citizens.

>>1088826
OK
>>1088827
So? I live, not lived, in Juneau.

>>1088843
More empty words, you're backed into a corner and have no arguments left.

>>1088843
Yeah. Fuck private citizens. They should be able to go anywhere in the millions of acres of national forest. That will show them.

>>1088842
The land isn't worthless it's just unused. You don't realize the vastness of the forests. Why do you call it worthless? Why should the government retain worthless land?

>>1088844
I lived in Skagway until a few weeks ago. And I'm saying it's bullshit. FS vehicles move all over SE on the ferries

>>1088845
I say sell it to the middle class you say no the miners will buy it. Another fool who doesn't trust the government but wants it to make all the decisions

>>1088847
So why would a private citizen want to buy the land, what would they do with it?

>>1088850
They could start by surrounding it with 'No Trespassing' signs and by escorting any trespassers off at gunpoint.

>>1088849
But mining companies will want to buy a lot of it. A lot of the land in the West/Southwest is only valuable for mineral extraction. It's not suitable for housing development.

>>1088851
And then what? Build on it? Lease it out for use? What?

>>1088853
They could shoot things on it. That could be fun.

>>1088852
Not if it is 5 acre chunks that prohibit mining
>>1088850
Recreational Lots, poor man's cabin, hunting camps or neet compounds. The states and feds already monetize the premium spots for cabin sites for the rich

>>1088857
>neet compounds

OOOHH. You're a NEET, that gives a lot of your posts some understandable context.

File: Screenshot_20170825-202226.png (1MB, 1200x1920px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1200x1920px

Only 42 1 acre lots available in all Idaho for $30,000 or less and look at all that green that no one ever gets to use locked away forever from the people. The middle class is being priced out because the government hoards the land and then let's it burn. Government workers are upper middle class or even rich if both work so don't give a fuck about the masses

>>1088848
It's called the Alaska Marine Highway System. If a FS worker drove a car to a neighboring town downsouth so what? We just have to take a ferry. So what you saw a FS vehicle on a ferry. Did it stay there? Nope. Did they need a Rubicon with locking differentials to drive the paved road to Dyea? Nope.

>>1088684
The people had the land and i would prefer it says with the people and not some sly Fortune 500 ran out of Asia or developer who wants to cover it with no trespassing signs.


And if you really care I actually battle the both the state and federal government on behalf of private persons in my professional life.

>>1088273
>all counties need to have a bustling "industry" or "economy"

It's okay to have BFE around

>the OP picture

What the fuck are they reviewing for the Los Padres forest? There's barely any usable timber and the existing legacy mines already fucked shit up hard enough with mercury tailings lying around

>>1088864
>paved road to Dyea

Dyea road isn't paved past the residential development off of Klondike Highway and a short stretch by the Chilkoot Trailhead. Also once you get into the West Creek area it starts getting pretty rough and there places past that where proper 4wd is needed. I know that area well, I drove that road every day for work.

Also you said those vehicles will never leave Juneau, but now you're saying "OK, they leave Juneau, but so what?" So you're just backpedaling now.

I think you never leave Juneau, hence why you're so unfamiliar with what actually goes on in the Tongass NF.

File: ansel adams.jpg (2MB, 2100x1400px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2100x1400px

>>1088655
>the Forest Service monitoring their own roads with vehicles = me recreationally offroading on those same roads
>government agencies don't need new vehicles and equipment

You sound like a silly person

>>1088861
http://www.landsofamerica.com/Idaho/all-land/under-30000/under-1-acre/

tl;dr- Kill yourself in one of those fine forest so you can at least fertilize the ground.

>>1088925
So you're just a seasonal employee that comes up in the summer who drove tourists to the Chilkoot trailhead that thinks they know everything. Do us a favor and stay down south.

File: 1439894921460.jpg (570KB, 1000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

570KB, 1000x1000px

>>1088684
>returned to the people

faggot it would be "returned" so that someone could run a fence around it, rape it for a short-term profit, and keep you from ever setting eyes on it again

on top of that the "returned" land would be taxed by the states (which is somehow more "the people" than feds, despite their common mission to not give a fuck about you) in perpetuity

as of now federal lands ARE in the possession of the people by the very fact that any old Tom Dick or Harry can walk in there, pitch a tent, literally shit in the soil, and then climb all over the mountain and scream from the top.

your fantastic vision of the future is a conga line of cars driving on a new highway past a brick-and-mortar wall surrounding big dumb stucco housing developments and open pit mines that we have no right to touch

>>1088805
hey stupid

corporations = people under US law

you don't have a fucking clue about how to even begin regulating a massive land sell-off like that

even if you were able to create some arbitrary policy that defined a more modest image of "the people" to make you warm and fuzzy, the truth is that none of the civilians that bought the land would have the means or capital to even benefit from the land they bought, and would immediately start selling it off to the highest bidders, who would certainly be the moneyed interests (stripminers) we are trying to avoid in the first place

sage for me blowing up this thread

>>1088930

You're going on the defensive and playing the "Real 'Laskan!" card because I've successfully called you out on your ignorance of what actually happens outside Juneau. You didn't even know that Dyea isn't (and can't be) paved, yet you think you're some kind of fucking expert on Land Management. But you're not, you're just a loudmouth who can't even be bothered to get his facts straight.

I may not have been born and raised in Alaska, I'm from South Dakota. But I was raised to not be proud of my own ignorance.

File: IMG_2431.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>1088938
Does this look familiar? Probably not because you've never been to Skagway in the winter.

File: IMG_2179.jpg (3MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 3264x2448px

>>1088940
And I've been to South Dakota.

>>1088940
No, in the winter I'm about 50 miles NE of Fairbanks working on a maintenance crew.

And you've been to South Dakota, good job. You're probably just as ignorant of SD as you are of AK.

None of this changes the fact that you just run your mouth about shit without bothering to see if it's true.

File: IMG_5407.jpg (4MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3264x2448px

>>1088943
What's funny is that some seasonal employee thinks they know more about a state than a resident. So have a pic a FS maintained trail.

File: IMG_5411.webm (3MB, 740x416px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 740x416px

>>1088948
weeeeeeeee I love that the FS puts down boards on trails in a rain forest.

>>1088948
I've demonstrated that I do know more than you. You were wrong about the Jeeps (which I kind of now doubt were rubicons) never leaving Juneau. You were wrong about very basic geographical facts of SE Alaska and instead of trying to show that you DO know what you're talking about, you just engage in ad hominem attacks against me.

I do know more about Alaska than you.

File: DSCN3867.jpg (2MB, 3264x2448px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 3264x2448px

>>1088951
>I've demonstrated that I do know more than you.
HAHA

>You were wrong about the Jeeps (which I kind of now doubt were rubicons) never leaving Juneau.
So the White Rubicons I saw which will show up soon at the FS office don't exist? "I saw a white car on the ferry so you're a liar"

>You were wrong about very basic geographical facts of SE Alaska
HAHA

Have a pic of my backpack.

>>1088951
>>1088956
I'm beginning to understand why Alaska has one of the highest murder rates in the US.

>>1088956
I'm sure you saw white Jeeps with FS logos on them, but given your demonstrated tendency to skew or make up basic facts I doubt that they were rubicons.

And I stand by my statement, which you actually haven't disproven, that I know more about Alaska than you. You just keep trying to make fun of me instead of making a point.

But since this is no longer about making valid arguments I'll just play along with your ad hominem game and share my opinion of you.

I've been up in Alaska for a while now, and I've met many kinds of Alaskans. What you are is an Armchair Alaskan. Juneau, Anchorage and Wasilla are full of people like. You live an ordinary modern American life, you work, you play video games and watch premium TV but because you go hiking and shoot funs at the gravel pit on the weekends you fancy yourself a real frontiersman. But you're a suburbanites, through and through. And other Alaskans laugh at you.

>>1088960
>>1088956
can this thread be about national parks and not this terrible shit

>>1088969
No. National parks are jobs programs for retards with fences and gates and thugs with guns around the nice part so regular folk can't get in.

>>1089059
where is this true

>>1089122
>>1089059
>>1088969
>>1088960
>>1088958
>>1088956
>>1088951
>>1088950
>>1088948
>>1088943
>>1088941
>>1088940
>>1088938

Anyway the federal gov’t is trying to take a bunch of land that is for public /out/ing and sell it for development or whatever. If you like being able to /out/ on public land you should go to trcp.org and check it out. If not, that’s ok too.

File: 1496839268170.jpg (65KB, 403x403px) Image search: [Google]

65KB, 403x403px

>>1089204
>Come to my website and give me money

>>1089277
Nah dude, a tweet helps (even though it isn’t much)

>showing out for the BLM

lol you fucking morons. The feds suck at managing anything that isnt a military. The states and counties would do a better job.

>>1088572
>>1088658
>>1088674

>muh evil rich people

Fuck off, shareblue. Just because we get the incompetent federal government out of managing land doesn't mean some cartoon oil baron is going to strip it of all its resources while laughing maniacally.

You guys really are predictable with your fear mongering.

>>1089691
>>1089673
I won't say that the federal government is terribly good at managing land, but I can walk/bike/camp essentially anywhere I want on BLM/National Forest land for free.

State land tends to be managed more like national parks - pay to get in, pay to camp. In my experience, private land owners never, ever want anyone to do anything on their land for free. A subset of them are paranoid/crazy enough to attempt to prevent anyone from trying, using guns.

>>1089673
They actually really suck at managing a military. It's just that cuckservatives won't admit it because they're afraid if being labeled an anti-american leftist monster.

>>1089790
>This

Women, trannys and affirmative action turned the military into a joke

>>1089790
OK pal. You let me know when you find an army bigger and better than the United States.

>>1089815
I'm not talking about combat effectiveness, I'm talking about basic administration. The US military bleeds money. They've lost billions on poorly written contracts, administrative fuck ups and just plain old pocket-lining corruption. If a private enterprise we're as inefficiently managed as the DoD they'd have gone bankrupt decades ago. But since we can't not have a military they just keep pouring more money in every year.

>>1089815
>Biggest and best

Why do they keep losing? Invasion of Granada was the last victory and now the Navy is accidentally ramming random ships around the world

>>1089820
The military isnt a business, you fucking moron. It isnt meant to turn a profit.

>>1089830
Therefore, the efficiency with which it spends money is entirely irrelevant?

>>1089830
It doesn't have to turn a profit, no. But that doesn't mean it has to piss away billions of dollars because of graft and incompetence.

Like Boeing taking them to the cleaners for $40 million by over charging for caster wheels on rolling ramps.

https://www.google.com/amp/mobile.reuters.com/article/amp/idUSKCN10U1IG

The US Army cooked its own books to the tune of almost two and a half trillion dollars. Government waste is government waste. If you're mad about the FS wasting money but not the DoD you're a hypocrite, plain and simple.

>>1089866
FS has to spend its money wiser. Not saying there isn't misuse, but they get a much smaller piece of the pie, spend half of it on firefighting, and have to carefully dole out the rest. They're pretty on top of their accounting because they don't have infinite money like the DOD.

>>1089867
What a crock. Only a stooge would believe that

>>1089869
You said it, pal! Those Forest Service boys are a bunch of maroons, but the Army is the bee's knees!

Twenty-three skiddoo!

>>1089873
Every government agency sucks my parasitic countryperson

>>1089882
Honestly there shouldn't even be a Federal government.

>>1089886
Don't be a commie, until about 20 years ago most agencies weren't too bad

>>1089917
>Don't be a commie

Commies want a strong, oppressive federal government you moron.

As for the last time federal agencies were any good? Try about 100 years ago when most of them didn't exist.

>>1088808
Rubicons actually have better off-road capability over the base models, so that does make sense.

>>1088923
What you should be more worried about is the new concessioner for Los padres. $50 pass now no dispersed camping near highway 1 anymore government doesn't need to sell public land they just lease it to concessions to charge you money to park and camp then shut down all free access.

>>1090227
Ever wonder why you can buy a pass to get into one national park but cannot get into another one without buying that passes park. it's because they are run by private cooperation. concessions just look at the latest Yosemite changing names around because the last company that owned the rights to make money there got underbid.

>>1090234
>What is an annual interagency pass?
>Actually paying to camp when the big parks usually have forest land next to it where you can disperse camp

>>1090234
You can buy a pass that gets you into all parks.

>>1090235
The interagency pass will not pay the parking fee at a national forest concession run area like Los padres national forest. you cannot dissperse camp within a area that has designated paid campgrounds. which is why you cannot camp on nacimento furgisson road by highway 1 anymore. learn the difference between management agencies of your public land.

>>1090236
Parks yes but it doesn't work on national forest where a concessionaire charges you money to park it's your public land being managed by a private cooperation.

Here in Oregon, the Mt. Hood National Forest has just decided to turn all their campgrounds over to private concessionaires. Nearly half of these campgrounds contain trailheads, and the concessionaires will charge a "day use fee" for trailhead parking.

As far as the concessionaires go, we've seen a mixed bag in terms of how they operate in relation to the Adventure Passes. In Santa Barbara, along the Santa Ynez River, a concessionaire has set up a "checkpoint." You can't drive beyond the checkpoint and use any of the facilities without purchasing an Adventure Pass. In Big Sur (still Los Padres NF), the concessionaires that operate the day use areas do not recognize the Adventure Pass or other Federal Lands passes. If you want to use the day use area, you have to buy one of the concessionaire's own passes. To be honest, this upsests me more than paying for an Adventure Pass.

A law called the Federal Lands Recreation Enhancement Act was supposed to set strict limits on the recreation fees the Forest Service can and cannot charge. But in a feat of hocus-pocus, the agency says it can simply set these limits aside when it surrenders lands to a concessionaire's private control.


http://www.hcn.org/wotr/privatization-threatens-an-arizona-national-forest

>>1090256
The interagency pass works as a parking permit for FS trailhead parking.

Don't get me wrong, dude. I'm not a fan of private concessionaires either, but don't use half truths to prop up your arguments. It undermines your final goal.

>>1090255
They specifically said "parks." Forest land is not a "park."

>>1090264
Forests turn to concessionaires because they lack the money and staff to run them properly. It's a sad state of affairs.

>>1090266
No it doesn't not anywhere around me in California. have a interagency pass and have to buy a adventure pass on top of that for $30 to use national forest land and the Los padres just got a new concessioner that is charging $50 pass. so my $80 interagency pass is worthless except when I go to Yosemite and Sequoia. All local trail access I use for daily exercise has been blocked and I can only park in the paid concessionaire parking area or get towed. This is for national forest public land.

>>1090271
Yes now they sit in an administrative office and let someone else ware a fake uniform pretend to be a forest service ranger and clean the bathroom.

Maybe if we didn't piss away $2.3 trillion in bad military accounting every year, other agencies wouldn't have to turn to cut-rate contractors for staff?

>>1090276
Pretty much. Their research divisions are still really active, but a lot of work that was in house has gone the way of contractors and volunteers.

>>1089936
You just aren't old enough to remember the 80s and 90s so you are taking everything to the extreme like antifags.

>>1090300
I was born in the 70s and look at history with an unapologetic lens. You're just motivated by nostalgia rather than logic or reason.

I'm a conservationist, but I feel that the government owns entirely too much land. Don't really have an issue with this desu.

>>1089936
Strong government =/= oppressive government. The spirit of the government is everything. The American government is not, and quite frankly seems to be utterly incapable of, enforcing laws in good faith.

>>1090334
If you want a strong government, you're a communist.

Just admit it, comrade.

>>1090337
Wew, lad. Most people prior to the industrial revolution lived in what amounted to an absolutist state, but that didn't make it Communism. Communism is Marxism-Leninism or its derivatives, not a strong government.

>>1090340
This is 2017, all similar things are identical.

>>1088735
Kek. I don't even pay that and I live in the outskirts of DC, houses in my neighborhood go for 5-600,000. Where in god's name do you live?

>>1088169
Fuck Roosevelt

>>1091242
you must live in a cardboard box if your property tax is less than $1000

>>1091247

Dude, TR has forgotten more about the outdoors than you will ever know.

Siskiyou NF is burning the fuck down right now. We are the stewards of ashes if we don't manage and log the lands responsibly.

>>1093014
>hurr durr fires are bad and not a necessity for healthy forests and wildlife populations

>>1093014
>log responsibly
Fuck off

>>1093024
Is logging LNT if they don't leave slash piles?

>>1093076
Absolutely not. Logging is antithetical to LNT.

File: godsend.jpg (15KB, 316x450px) Image search: [Google]

15KB, 316x450px

>>1088160
>nothing i can really do about it

File: IMG_20170902_194658_072.jpg (4MB, 3968x2976px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 3968x2976px

To bring this back on topic. I went to Grand escalante over the summer and had a great time. It is very remote but open. Its not like you can 4 wheel wherever you want but you shouldn't be able to do that anyways because it tears up so much stuff. The established roads there still require a good amount of 4wd driving skills, especially when going through and down washes, or even getting to some trailheads. You can hike where ever you want basically but walking through desert for 40 miles without any trees or water isn't exactly a bright idea or fun time. There plenty of private roads and property on it but you can basically go wherever you want.

>>1093136
>>1093024
Logging isn't LNT but it needs to be done in areas where people have developed parts of the land and constantly suppress wildfire. Forest fires are a natural part of a forest ecosystem, but we let fuel load build far too much.

Clear-cutting isn't the solution either.

>>1093136
Why, they leave no trace of the trees which causes smog by the way

File: DSC_0436.jpg (1MB, 1473x2200px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1473x2200px

>>1093195
Yeah pretty cool out there, here's a pic from a few years ago

>>1088655
>we don't even have any dirt roads on Forest Service land

LIAR
LIAR
LIAR

>>1089673
>The states and counties would do a better job

Stop embarrassing yourself.

>>1090234
>you can buy a pass to get into one national park but cannot get into another one without buying that passes park

The used car sales people just love people like you.

>>1093437
>t. Government slug

File: 1491358508710.jpg (70KB, 470x470px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 470x470px

>>1089059
>(you)

>>1088209
private land actually gets looked after you statist faggot. If the government owning all land was the most beneficial arrangement then should they also own all the farms? All businesses?

You only think things should be this way because that's the way things currently are; not because private property wouldn't work.

File: IMG_0859.jpg (4MB, 4032x3024px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 4032x3024px

>>1095403
So if we were to sell off this land to people what would happen? Would they be allowed to build roads and houses on it? Put up fences? Can I go camp on their property for 10 days?

How would selling off this land benefit me as an outdoorsman?

Pic related. Just add a freeway, several thousand houses and businesses, and a cop arresting me for taking a shit in public and carrying a rifle on my pack.

>>1095532
What is that flat thing?