Roadless Act under attack.

July 13, 2004 10:09 AM

Roadless Act under attack. Agriculture Secretary Ann Veneman announced today the plan to lift a Clinton-era ban on building roads into wilderness areas on National Forest Service lands. Instead of keeping the ban at a federal level, the decision on wether or not to allow roads to be built would now be deffered to state governers.

I can't help but wonder, how is this in the public's interests at all? It is unreasonable to paint this as, "the biggest single giveaway to the timber industry in the history of the national forests", or does this really have value that the average American could benefit from?
posted by Hackworth (63 comments total)

giveaway to the timber industry.
posted by quonsar at 10:16 AM on July 13, 2004

or giveaway to states rights
posted by xmutex at 10:18 AM on July 13, 2004

I second the motion of the distinguished gentleman from Michigan (Q), as my blood boils and trees scream.
posted by moonbird at 10:20 AM on July 13, 2004

It's further proof that Bush is, in fact, a homo.

Oh wait, wrong thread.

I don't get it, why do Republicans hate trees?
posted by Outlawyr at 10:21 AM on July 13, 2004

hooray for state's rights, but makes me wonder why the fed would hand over control and power without a little grease for the palms. maybe this isn't what it seems, but it sure is convenient for the timber industry.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 10:22 AM on July 13, 2004

This is looking like a preemptive way of opening new avenues of business for people who won't have a job in Washington come next January.
posted by clevershark at 10:30 AM on July 13, 2004

Well, any public timber company benefiting from this would by default benefit average Americans through 410k plans, mutual funds, companies paying more taxes, cheaper new home construction materials and lumber, etc. Of course, all weighed against the impact on the environment. And this is assuming that timber companies will also obtain approval for logging on National Forest Service land. And assuming that states will allow roads to be built.
posted by loquax at 10:33 AM on July 13, 2004

Outlawyer, Republicans don't hate trees, they love money, and the timber industry has lots of it to spend in an election year. I know, I'm stating the obvious here....

<hillybilly_accent>
But hey, I already dun tore up all the roads in my county with my 74' Bronco with 12" suspension lift and 36" mud tires. We gonna need some new roads!
</hillybilly_accent>
posted by bicyclingfool at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2004

its not just the timber industry, its oil drilling and natural gas and mining and many other extraction industries. While in general i like deferring decision making to the state/local level, i am not sure it applies here. Does Wyoming own and control the future of Yellowstone? Does the CA governor get to dictate the outcome of the Sierras? Do the mormons own the canyonlands? These are all national treasures, owned collectively by all of us. The New Yorker has as much right and claim to float down the Colorado river as the guy from Utah.

Also, the extraction industries are already getting plenty of private usage from our public lands.
posted by H. Roark at 10:35 AM on July 13, 2004

Has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis of short-term benefits from development vs. loss of natural resources, as far as a state budget would be concerned? Would tax revenue outweight loss of tourism dollars? Or would resulting effects, like problems associated with pollution and possible climate change eventually come out on top?
posted by Hackworth at 10:40 AM on July 13, 2004

Has anyone ever done a cost-benefit analysis of short-term benefits from development vs. loss of natural resources...

In the short-term, industry and businesses that support legislators make out. These people don't give a flyin' one about the long-term.
posted by Shane at 10:47 AM on July 13, 2004

The entire *point* of having National Forests is to prevent things like this.

Why is it so hard to see the value in drawing a line around the best wilderness we have and then not fucking with it? Not everything, just the best. Please?
posted by y6y6y6 at 10:57 AM on July 13, 2004

I agree with H. Roark.
posted by zpousman at 10:59 AM on July 13, 2004

I don't think that tourism will be adversly affected by lumbering in most cases. In my experience (feel free to correct me), 99% of people don't take advantage of more than a few % of the millions of acres available in federal lands. Not many folks take their kids on a three-day hike into the trackless woodlands.

As long as responsible safeguards are enacted to ensure that wholesale destruction isn't visited on the areas, I don't have any objections to allowing it.
posted by CRS at 10:59 AM on July 13, 2004

One of the big problems with building roads through National forests, is that the government foots the bill and only the Timber Companies make a profit on it. So the government loses so private business can gain.
posted by drezdn at 11:06 AM on July 13, 2004

"As long as responsible safeguards are enacted to ensure that wholesale destruction isn't visited on the areas, I don't have any objections to allowing it."

pardon me...

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA...
posted by PigAlien at 11:14 AM on July 13, 2004

Will any logging be done in this park?
posted by substrate at 11:23 AM on July 13, 2004

The curse of environmental protection is the lack of hard economics. Even with decades of environmental economics and science research showing that a clear cut of forest x acres in size at x degree of slope will produce x dollars of damage to streams and watersheds, deep down you can't put a price on beauty or unspoiled wilderness.

You can, however, put a price on the goods inside, so that usually wins.

That said, it still baffles me why for-profit companies are allowed to wander onto federal land, remove perfectly healthy resources like trees, then sell them and keep all the money. Don't farmers usually own or at least have some stake in the land they till?
posted by mathowie at 11:24 AM on July 13, 2004

While in general i like deferring decision making to the state/local level, i am not sure it applies here. Does Wyoming own and control the future of Yellowstone? Does the CA governor get to dictate the outcome of the Sierras? Do the mormons own the canyonlands?

Exactly. If states want to allow logging/whatever in the parklands within their borders, they can use State Parks, not National Parks.

If the Gov. of Wymonig decided that they needed a new football stadium in a National Park, the Feds would put their foot down so damn fast it would cause an earthquake (and rightfully so). What's the difference here besides the $$??

I call shenanigans.
posted by Ufez Jones at 11:34 AM on July 13, 2004

"The New Yorker has as much right and claim to float down the Colorado river as the guy from Utah."

You throw my New Yorker in the river and you're in big trouble buster.

"As long as responsible safeguards are enacted to ensure that wholesale destruction isn't visited on the areas, I don't have any objections to allowing it."

Well, you have nothing to worry about, CRS, because the Bush adminstration is all about responsible safeguards. As is the lumbar industry.
posted by Outlawyr at 11:41 AM on July 13, 2004

Why exactly do you think that responsible safeguards are impossible to implement? I've not seen any proof that it can't be done.
posted by CRS at 11:53 AM on July 13, 2004

Why is it so easy for one administration to over turn decisions made from previous administrations? Shouldn't the act of overturning have to be some kind of consensus by the Senate or something like that?

It is nice how the war on terrorism has conveniently distracted the attention away from the environmental issues that were at hand pre-9/11.

What the fuck does a wilderness need a road for? The only possible reason is to either exploit it for its natural resources, thereby destroying said wilderness, or to allow every fat piece of shit in this country too lazy to hike in, easy access for their SUV's.

This kind of thing should be put to a vote, and I don't mean to Congress. We as a voting populace should have some say in things. Though, that might not always go the way we want it, at least we could have a say. Our current system gives us almost no voice. All of our elected officials are bought and paid for.

Pardon my rant, but this pisses me off
posted by a3matrix at 11:59 AM on July 13, 2004

Well, you have nothing to worry about, CRS, because the Bush adminstration is all about responsible safeguards. As is the lumbar industry.

The Physical Therapy industry may not like that comparison.

Why exactly do you think that responsible safeguards are impossible to implement? I've not seen any proof that it can't be done.

It's not a matter of 'can' it be done, it's a matter of 'will' it be done.
posted by Ufez Jones at 12:00 PM on July 13, 2004

"If we don't build these roads... then the Trees have already won."

"The Trees hate our Freedom..."

And so on...
posted by BobFrapples at 12:01 PM on July 13, 2004

Why exactly do you think that responsible safeguards are impossible to implement? I've not seen any proof that it can't be done.

Oh, no one's saying that it's impossible, just that this pretty much takes away the current protection for these natural resources and offers no incentive or gurantee for them to be replaced.
posted by Hackworth at 12:04 PM on July 13, 2004

I've not seen any proof that it can't be done.

It can be done, the problem is that in the real world it rarely happens. In the past 5-10 years there are numerous examples of industries that were handed down changes in the law that allowed for self-regulation instead of gov't agency compliance and checking.

I don't think I've ever seen an article about industry self-regulation that worked. Basically it's in every company's interests to operate their business as cheaply as possible and skirt expensive limitations, so self-regulation effectively means no regulation.
posted by mathowie at 12:05 PM on July 13, 2004

Why exactly do you think that responsible safeguards are impossible to implement?

By building roads into environmentally sensitive areas, you are inviting disaster. Also, building roads defeats the entire purpose of having wilderness areas in the first place.
posted by a3matrix at 12:08 PM on July 13, 2004

Why exactly do you think that responsible safeguards are impossible to implement?

more succinctly, because designating untouchable wilderness areas and prohibiting the building of roads in same ARE THE RESPONSIBLE SAFEGUARDS, DUMBASS!!!!!
posted by quonsar at 12:11 PM on July 13, 2004

Privatizing public forests for the gain of a very few is a trademark of our corporate masters.

Nutshell of the dispute: Canada has INFINITE trees. Canada sells them cheap. We can buy as much as we want. They'll never run out. American timber companies have successfully lobbied for a large customs duty on Canadian timber, so that people will buy American instead of Canadian. U.S. timber prices have gone up, obviously (less supply, demand always increasing slowly). Canada complained to the WTO and won, so the timber duties are being rolled back.

There's absolutely no need for more U.S. timber cutting. Canada has infinite trees and sells them cheap.

Taking public resources (like tax money, public land, or things that grow on public land) and giving them to private companies, and then the private companies turn around and kick back a fraction of that in campaign contributions, is the modus operandi of both parties. It's a GREAT way to make money for both the parties and the corporations, and only the public gets screwed. Absolutely nothing new or surprising here.
posted by jellicle at 12:25 PM on July 13, 2004

I don't think anyone's actually building new roads; they're really just filing claims to roads that are "existing", but the standards for what constitutes an existing road are terribly lax. In some cases, roads that are shown on 100+ year old maps that haven't been used in decades, or watercourses where people happen to drive along the streambed. Once you have roads in an area, poof!, it can no longer be declared a wilderness area, and then mining/logging/drilling companies can go in and do whatever.
posted by LionIndex at 12:25 PM on July 13, 2004

People seem to think that national forests were somehow designated as untouchable wilderness areas, but that's simply not true. They're designated as multipurpose use areas. In general, national forests have always been exploited and logged to varying degrees (the exceptions are designated wilderness areas, but they're designated by statute and not by the USDA).

There are reasons why the national forests are managed by the USDA, who never met a tree it didn't want to cut down, and not by the Park Service.

(I don't like the decision, but it's not the case that this is a new giveaway; it "merely" reinstates an old giveaway)
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 12:37 PM on July 13, 2004

more succinctly, because designating untouchable wilderness areas and prohibiting the building of roads in same ARE THE RESPONSIBLE SAFEGUARDS, DUMBASS!!!!!

quonsars statement says it all. Kudos Q
posted by a3matrix at 12:38 PM on July 13, 2004

Ufez Jones wrote somewhere above: If states want to allow logging/whatever in the parklands within their borders, they can use State Parks, not National Parks.

While I share the sentiment, I think your terminology is inaccurate. I think we're talking about things like national forests here. National forests are managed by the Department of Agriculture, not the National Parks Service. I was reminded of this in my recent vacation to northeastern New Mexico. Big signs: "Welcome to Carson National Forest (USDA)"

As I recall, the official mission statement of the National Forest Service is to balance ALL uses of public lands: recreation as well as commercial.

But still, it can't be good that the feds are giving over some of the decision making power for federal lands to the states.
posted by tippiedog at 1:12 PM on July 13, 2004

"In utilizing and conserving the natural resources of the Nation, the one characteristic more essential than any other is foresight.... The conservation of our natural resources and their proper use constitute the fundamental problem which underlies almost every other problem of our national life."

Theodore Roosevelt.

I guess it's too much to ask that the current Pro-corruption, anti-worker, pro-short-term gain Republican party would look to his legacy.
posted by lumpenprole at 1:24 PM on July 13, 2004

I think most people here are assuming the worst a little too quickly. A decent rebuttal to the concerns of environmentalists can be found here. Please note the tone, both of the article and of Representative Pombo, is somewhat offensive to those who see this as public defense of land against corporate greed, but several facts are given that should be considered. Also keep in mind the unadressed facts such as:

1) The rise in wildfires is as much the result of 60 years of fire suppresion and 6 to 10 years of drought, as it is to decreased logging. The same can be said for the spread of pine beetles and desease among the northern forests.
2) The American logging industry is not competetive anymore with Canadian lumber. So bolstering this sector of industry seems rather anti-free market to me, but then we already knew that about the Bush administration.
3) The concerns of sportsmen haven't been talked of in any article I've read about this, yet. As a concerned voting block, they can be pretty powerful.

That having been said, I do not trust my state (Montana) to have one flipping ounce of good sence in administering these new policies.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:28 PM on July 13, 2004

Well, any public timber company benefiting from this would by default benefit average Americans through 410k plans, mutual funds, companies paying more taxes, cheaper new home construction materials and lumber, etc.

Hmm... not really following the logic, here... So, loggers generally contribute to 401K plans and mutual funds? And companies pay a use-tax when they log? Interesting... and here I thought their economic contributions were likely to be local and seasonal.

And, as has been established, the chief barrier to lower-cost building materials is protectionism.

Truth seems to me to be that the more you funnel money to a corporation with the idea that it helps the employees fo that corporation (and, of course, their fellows in the local community), the more somebody inside the corporation is likely to take a cut -- and the bigger that cut is likely to get.

See, all those nasty-bad things that free-trade, free-market types like to say about BUREAUCRACY, also end up being true about Corporations, at the end of the day. And even more so as the Corporations get deeper and deeper under the covers with the bureaucrats.
posted by lodurr at 1:37 PM on July 13, 2004

One set of concerned parties in this case would undoubtedly be groups devoted to "open use" of wilderness areas. There are a few groups in particular who have a very, very, very, VERY strong right-wing agenda (promotions include bumper stickers that say, "Stop global whining!" and "Land of No Uses") that believes organizations that are "for" the environment are actually radical left-wingers who hate people and America (no, I'm serious.)

They'll love to see this, in part because their members will in turn be able to use their snowmobiles and off-roading equipment on these lands. Their stance is that wilderness areas aren't for the people if people can't bring their big, polluting equipment on to them. Adding roads means accessibility, and not just for big industries.
posted by hijinx at 1:41 PM on July 13, 2004

Why yes, bicyclingfool and a3matrix, let's make stereotypical fun of hillbillies and "fat piece[s] of shit." That'll show 'em!

I'm becoming less and less convinced that all the haters are on the right. /naive liberal
posted by callmejay at 1:48 PM on July 13, 2004

Uh, folks, could we get a handle on the idea that there is a huge difference between national forest land and congressionally designated Wilderness areas? It might help the whole discussion thingy that we're attempting here.
posted by Wulfgar! at 1:53 PM on July 13, 2004

I just want to say that I smirked seeing H. Roark advocate 'collective ownership'. Still consistant with objectivism in the context of public lands... but was funny anyway.
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 2:00 PM on July 13, 2004

Even if safeguards were put into place, there's a foxes and henhouse problem. When logging companies build roads, they're supposed to safeguard streams by building culverts that allow (for example) salmon to return upstream to spawn. (And before anyone starts sarcastically whining about the poor fishies, remember that salmon are money to many, many businesses. You got that? MONEY.)
In practice, these are so laxly enforced by the hugely pro-logging land management agencies that they don't get properly implmented; they're just a sop to voters, an example of a "safeguard" that can be pointed out during the public debate but which in practice isn't worth shit.
posted by George_Spiggott at 2:02 PM on July 13, 2004

Former Senator Frank Church is currently turning over in his grave.
posted by nyoki at 2:06 PM on July 13, 2004

Former Senator Frank Church is currently turning over in his grave.

Jesus Christ, people get a fucking grip. Congressionally mandated Wilderness is not on the table here. Quit confusing yourselves, please. There's a hell of legal difference between building roads in the Beaverhead National Forest, and drilling for oil in the ANWAR. Get it?
posted by Wulfgar! at 2:14 PM on July 13, 2004

or to allow every fat piece of shit in this country too lazy to hike in, easy access for their SUV's.

Speaking as a fat piece of shit, I think it's safe to say that statements like these don't help your argument.
posted by mosch at 2:39 PM on July 13, 2004

Yeah, but do you own an SUV, you fat piece of shit?
posted by Armitage Shanks at 2:59 PM on July 13, 2004

I have a different Teddy Roosevelt quote for lumpenprole:

"Conservation means development as much as it does protection." -- From his New Nationalism speech
posted by event at 3:32 PM on July 13, 2004

but development into what exactly?
posted by Tryptophan-5ht at 3:58 PM on July 13, 2004

but development into what exactly?

At this point, it's for the states to decide (God help us all).
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:11 PM on July 13, 2004

states rights re: timber, oil, wildlife, etc.: OK w/GOP
states rights re: gay marriage: will gut the Constitution to prevent it.

Inconsistent? Hmmm...

</obvious>
posted by ltracey at 6:02 PM on July 13, 2004

ltracey, Yup. I think you nailed it.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:05 PM on July 13, 2004

The rise in wildfires is as much the result of 60 years of fire suppresion and 6 to 10 years of drought, as it is to decreased logging. The same can be said for the spread of pine beetles and desease among the northern forests.

I don't have a handy source link for this, but my understanding is that many wildfires are fueled by younger trees that have sprung up in the last few decades. However, these trees are not as deisrable to log as the old-growth trees. I don't think it would be profitable for timber companies to just go in and cut the new growth trees.
posted by JDC8 at 6:23 PM on July 13, 2004

JDC8, uh yes and no. It isn't the young trees, perse, that are the fuel, but the tangle of underbrush, chaperalle, and young trees (too young to be of any use to anybody). And if you read the link, you'll find that my posited opinion is the same as those of the study ... fire suppression has been the culprit, not a lack of logging.
posted by Wulfgar! at 6:55 PM on July 13, 2004

I'm sorry. I have absolutely no sympathy for the federal government confiscating enormous tracts of State lands, then placing them off limits to the people who live there.
Sure, federal parks, for conservation and preservation, are a good thing, but enough is enough. In my lifetime, most of the interesting things in my State have been taken over by the feds. Things that were State owned and free, have been taken over, and you now have to pay a hefty fee to visit. IF they feel like giving you permission, which they don't always do.
Does the "public" really NEED 90+% of the State of Alaska? What about the 70+% of Nevada? Divide up the western States between federal lands and Indian Reservations, and there is not a heck of a lot left except a few big cities.

You might look at Utah. Very underpopulated, with vast forests that are wide open, almost no visitors, pristine because they are in the middle of nowhere. Why does the federal government feel it needs to put these lands "off limits" to the few people who might want to camp out there? Instead demanding a 'Federal Parks Pass' lest they be ticketed by the single forest ranger in a 300 square mile area?

The "crown jewels" ARE protected. But there is no reason on this earth, other than greed, ignorance, and contempt for the "common man", that supports taking away nature from those contemptible bourgeois so despised by many environmentalists.
posted by kablam at 8:51 PM on July 13, 2004

kablam, you're farting in the wind here, and making little noise for no purpose. This isn't about where you or I can camp; it's about where you or I can camp without being disturbed by the clearcutting going on on the next ridge over.

Except for the Wasatch front (unaccessable by most roads, period, nor is it feasable to build many) Utah is largely unforested. The dreaded federal government (Oh no! end Mr. Bill voice) has put these lands off limits to assholes who will spend your money to build roads so that they might profit from the timber that is there. And now, BushCo has given the green light for those lands to be exploited at your expense, for the benefit of a few. No one, I repeat, no fucking one has placed these lands off limits for you to hike your partisan fat ass up into them and camp. Your argument is the worst sort of misdirective tripe, pretending that one has hurt you, when no one has. That's called a straw man argument, but I'm sure you know that, don't you?

And for the record, all of the land in the west IS federal land, purchased with federal dollars from France and Spain. The states have no proprietary rights to it, except in your delusions. If you as a citizen of the United States want to use those lands within federal guidelines, go right ahead. No one is stopping you, except the little voices that tell you that evil environmentalists are out to get you. Coward.

Next time you attempt a misdirection ploy, kindly make it more substantial. That way, you won't end seeming like such a dick.
posted by Wulfgar! at 9:20 PM on July 13, 2004

"Yeah, but do you own an SUV, you fat piece of shit?"

Well... that seems to about sum up the level of discourse that is increasingly common in this country.
posted by soulhuntre at 12:01 AM on July 14, 2004

One of the problems with the roadless initative as enacted by the Clinton goverment is that it is perceived by many as a very blunt tool. I lurk on several off-road/4x4 type mailing lists and this is/was a very hot button issue. Many classic offroad trails that have been around since Henry started making the Model T were gated and declared off limits. There is the honest thought that states could apply the regulations better.

One of the ironic things is that the majority of the people on these lists and those who belong to clubs are conservationists. They truely enjoy the great outdoors and want it to stick around. Example: we almost all carry garbage bags with us and often carry out twice as much as we brought in.
posted by Mitheral at 8:27 AM on July 14, 2004

Google fails me now, but I remember seeing studies immediately after Bush took office and startes pushing this kind of stuff that showed that towns in areas near national forest tracts with high wilderness value pull in significantly more money from tourism than towns located near logging projects make from that industry. The tourism trade is sustainable, too, while the logging towns last for awhile then disappear as the resources are exhausted.

Fishing is one of the major tourist industries for the areas like Alaska and Montana that are most impacted by the roadless rule or lack thereof, and logging and roads destroy fish habitat even if it happens upstream and out of sight of most hikers.

Mitheral: What's ironic is claiming that 4x4ers are conservationists because some of them bring out a portion of the trash the rest of them leave everywhere.

Plus, give it a rest. There are so many areas accessible by road and so few that are not. In the lower 48, almost nowhere is more than 10 miles from an existing road, and you could probably count the points more than 20 miles distant on one hand.

Why not leave those last tiny tiny little scraps? Should NOWHERE be inaccessible to cars? Does the benefit of adding a meagre few years to the sickly and inevitable end of the US timber industry's life possibly compensate for the loss,forever, of the very last of our wild places?
posted by bradhill at 12:19 PM on July 14, 2004

Funny you should mention fishing bradhill. On two occasions at two different places, I had discussions with two different Rangers regarding the issue of litter. I noted, and they agreed with me, that the majority of litter was fishing related. Bait containers, fishing line, plastic wrappers from fishing lures, add to that the non fishing centric items, beer cans (at places where alcoholic beverages are not allowed) lying next to the fishing litter, bags from a variety of snacks. It goes on.
I made the suggestion that maybe they should ban the fishing. That in turn would get rid of most of the trash, we could at least then see if the littering dropped off and if there was indeed a correlation between fishing and littering. But of course, being lowly Rangers, all they could do was agree. They don't set poilcy, merely enforce it.
posted by a3matrix at 12:53 PM on July 14, 2004

Wulfgar: "And for the record, all of the land in the west IS federal land, purchased with federal dollars from France and Spain. The states have no proprietary rights to it, except in your delusions. If you as a citizen of the United States want to use those lands within federal guidelines, go right ahead. No one is stopping you, except the little voices that tell you that evil environmentalists are out to get you. Coward."

What country are you talking about here? Certainly not the US. The Louisiana Purchase is just a fraction of the West, and the US didn't pay diddly for California or the southwest. It took the northwest from the British and it bought Alaska from the Russians. Idaho never did have a foreign flag flying over it.
The federal government has a *right* to own it only by taking it away from the respective states. That right was established by Teddy Roosevelt, and has been growing by obscene leaps and bounds ever since.
Tens of thousands of square miles have NO regular federal presence, and yet, individuals cannot own property there, and MUST PAY FEES to camp there. If a federal officer finds you there he will either ask to see your PASS, or ask you to leave.
And THIS LAND is not "precious". It is ordinary. There are no great views here. For the most part it is empty plain, desert or tundra. MOST of it should belong to the States in which it rests, as much as any land back east does.

Despite what has been promised MOST of this land has been stolen for only ONE purpose: to drive the people off of it. Not for any great or pressing reason, but because environmentalists want it for their own--they do not believe the public has a right to visit, live on, or use public lands.

These are people who are sick in the head, like Edward Abbey, who proposed the destruction of civilization so that "nature" could thrive. TO HELL WITH THEM.
posted by kablam at 3:16 PM on July 14, 2004

Tens of thousands of square miles have NO regular federal presence, and yet, individuals cannot own property there, and MUST PAY FEES to camp there. If a federal officer finds you there he will either ask to see your PASS, or ask you to leave.

Well, what's so wrong with that? It's better than allowing people to buy off bits of it, carve the whole place up and string fence all over the place; and better still than selling it off to corporations that will tear it all up in the name of logging or mining profits. At least this way us ordinary mortals have *some* access - if it were all privately owned, there'd be none.

And THIS LAND is not "precious". It is ordinary. There are no great views here. For the most part it is empty plain, desert or tundra.

That's what makes it precious. There's very little ordinary wilderness land left in the U.S (well, in the lower 48, at least). Even in Nevada, where there are vast tracts of sagebrush country bearing a very low human population, most of the accessible land has been exploited via mining or cattle grazing.

Despite what has been promised MOST of this land has been stolen for only ONE purpose: to drive the people off of it.

Nobody has stolen any land or driven anyone off since the U.S. Army kicked the natives out. We are talking about undeveloped roadless wilderness - if there are any people there, they hiked in. You're talking about this like it's some federal land grab, and that's just silly; the national forests and BLM land in the western states are just the land that was left over after everyone got done claiming their farms through the homestead act.

Not for any great or pressing reason, but because environmentalists want it for their own

Um, ok. You're just making this up as you go, aren't you?
posted by Mars Saxman at 4:28 PM on July 14, 2004

kablam, if I read the Constitution correctly, the states are granted ownership of the land when they become states. Until that time the land is under federal stewardship, and quite often the exploitation rights (water right, mineral right, logging rights) remain with the federal government until an appeal is made by the state. The Federal government hasn't "stolen" anything, not one thing, and I strongly request that you prove otherwise. (You also might want to check a map of the Louisiana purchase. It's substantially more than a fraction of the west, unless you consider 1 half just a mere fraction. Also, the Oregon territories weren't taken from the British, they were ceded by the people living there, much as Texas was, to be American territories, and accepted all the constraints of Federal control thereby.)

Tens of thousands of square miles have NO regular federal presence, and yet, individuals cannot own property there, and MUST PAY FEES to camp there. If a federal officer finds you there he will either ask to see your PASS, or ask you to leave.

This is complete and utter bullshit, and I'd like you to prove it. If you are caught camping without paying fee in a federally maintained campground, then you are asked to leave, and you should be. I'm paying for your squatting at that point, and I wouldn't care if you got thrown in a river, you leech. As for camping in National Forest land, you don't need a permit or fee, and I'll continue to believe so until you prove your panicky claim.

And THIS LAND is not "precious". It is ordinary. There are no great views here. For the most part it is empty plain, desert or tundra. MOST of it should belong to the States in which it rests,

Why? What would the states do with it that the Federal government isn't? You keep throwing up this red flag of danger but you've yet to explain WHY. The truth is, most federal land isn't good for very much, except camping on, or hiking over to get to some place scenic. And there is the protection of endangered species to consider. Is that what really has your buttocks all chapped and red-like?

Despite what has been promised MOST of this land has been stolen for only ONE purpose: to drive the people off of it. Not for any great or pressing reason, but because environmentalists want it for their own--they do not believe the public has a right to visit, live on, or use public lands.

Again, please, for the love of God, would you just prove this instead of making wildly inflammatory claims? Environmentalists don't run the government, federal or state. Why are you ranking on them as if they do? Why are you so afraid of those who want to leave wildlands ... wild?

These are people who are sick in the head, like Edward Abbey, who proposed the destruction of civilization so that "nature" could thrive. TO HELL WITH THEM.

Finally, something upon which we mostly agree. And I think you're grossly mischaracterizing Edward Abbey, but you might want to take that up with fold_and_mutilate. And I will reiterate that you still have not laid any foundation for your anti-federalist rants. You haven't shown that the MAN will kick you off federal land for no reason. You haven't shown that the MAN from the state will do anything otherwise. And you haven't shown that anything you've said here actually relates to the topic of roadless lands. I hope you'll forgive me here, but your arguments so far have been pulled right out of your butt. Please try harder. It would benefit us all ... really.
posted by Wulfgar! at 4:30 PM on July 14, 2004

if I read the Constitution correctly, the states are granted ownership of the land when they become states

You read it wrong, which is why kablam is simply incorrect. There is no requirement that the federal government cede federally-owned land to a new state.

At the time when what would later become Idaho was organized as part of Washington territory, title to the vast majority of the land was held by the federal government, and stayed that way.

When Idaho was organized as its own territory in 1863, most of its land was owned by the federal government, and stayed that way.

When Idaho became a state in 1890, the title to most of the land in Idaho was held by the federal government, and it stayed that way.

There simply never was any great land-grab by the feds out west. They simply kept what they had, choosing not to cede it to the newly-formed states.

kablam's history is flat-out no-shit 100% wrong in lots of ways. He writes that we didn't "pay diddly" for the southwest, which is technically true. But only because we paid $15,000,000 for the Mexican cession and a later $7,000,000 for the Gadsden purchase. There was no right to own western lands, or to take them away from the states, that was established by Teddy Roosevelt, much less one that had expanded obscenely since then.
posted by ROU_Xenophobe at 6:13 PM on July 14, 2004

Forest access is *definitely* something that should be in the hands of the states. If they want to let the timber industry in to give their people jobs, and those people think that having jobs is a worthwhile trade off, what's wrong with that. These sorts of things ought to be decided on a more local level.

Also, When did this become strictly about logging? Aren't there other uses for forest land than taking the forest home with you? I for one like to camp, hike, offroad, etc. Oh, wait, I forgot: *using* nature's beauty isn't okay anymore - you only get to admire it from afar so it's "preserved". great idea.
posted by mr_mindless at 6:21 PM on July 14, 2004