Black Hills relocated???

[cav has been]

According to the news over 650,000 acres here in Montana have burned so far this year. The numbers are likely significantly higher than that. The local to me fire, (Rice Ridge fire) burned 70,000 acres yesterday and last night.
There have been over a thousand homes evacuated and who knows the cost in$$. This catastrophic fire can be laid at the Forest dis-Services doorstep. Decades of mismanagement or no management are providing the fuel for this seasons record fires. Lackadaisical fire fighting strategies keep them growing.
Tomorrow morning Poncin's type 1 team is taking over the Rice Ridge and nearby Liberty fire management. I have been on fires managed by this team and have some hope that there will be some kind of a workable plan put into motion. God in his time will give us rain and snow which WILL pit the fires out.
Rant not over but returned to simmer.

 

[P-Squared]

Cav, what about the decades of the tree huggers stopping spraying of the pine beatles? I have family in Butte, the hills behind it are ripe for blow-torch level burning from all the dead pine. Spray or burn, that's the only way to get rid of those varmints. The bad part is all those forests are going to be grasslands for the next 100 years as the forests regrow. So much for those college theories.

 

[cav has been]

PSquared, No question about that. When challenged, the USdeFS did what any good bunch of bureaucrats do, they bent over and grabbed their ankles. Aside from that, the virtual cessation of logging has left the bugs and fire the only harvesters of timber.

 

[Redmanss]

PSquared, No question about that. When challenged, the USdeFS did what any good bunch of bureaucrats do, they bent over and grabbed their ankles. Aside from that, the virtual cessation of logging has left the bugs and fire the only harvesters of timber.

Utah State Rep Mike Noel (R) had about the most perfect comments about that a couple months ago during the Brian Head Fire.

 

[cav has been]

Well, happy days, our esteemed governor has just updated the fire situation here in Montana. The latest report is 800,000 acres burnt this summer, but not to worry he has applied for more Federal grants.

 

[Duc]

One of my favorite places burned this weekend. Cabins were over 100 years old. Friends home had fire less then 200yds from his place, if he hadn't disked a firebreak ,it would be gone too.
Alice Creek fire

 

[ArmyJerry]

its unconstitutional for the government to own or manage all this land , it should be returned to the states from which it was seized. Leave the states to manage their own land.

 

[shootist2004]

its unconstitutional for the government to own or manage all this land , it should be returned to the states from which it was seized. Leave the states to manage their own land.

Trump is trying to do this..............

 

[ArmyJerry]

no blue ribbons for trying, he needs to start doing

 

[cav has been]

I absolutely agree ArmyJerry! Having decades of experience on wildfires with BIA,BLM,USdeFS,and State Lands, I can tell you truthfully the State gets a hell of a lot more done for a fraction of the cost compared to the Federales. Montana Dept. of State lands aka DNRC has a mission statement ' put the damn fire out". They seem to have made a startling discovery in that if you attack a fire vigorously when it is small you can readily and economically kick it's ass. With the Federal agencies, it's a matter of more days on the fire = bigger paychecks + bigger budgets + new pick-ups, computers, office furniture,& etc. ad nauseum.

 

[cav has been]

Blackened total acres this year in Montana just over 1,000,000 and counting this evening. Thanks Smokey.

 

[sandwarrior]

its unconstitutional for the government to own or manage all this land , it should be returned to the states from which it was seized. Leave the states to manage their own land.

It's not unconstitutional at all.

The states couldn't handle managing public land back in the day. That's why most of the states back when, left management to the Federal Government. Of course, now, the Feds want to maintain control.

The problem has been now that rather than manage forests, what cav has been says is true, now budget takes priority over reality. And, for the longest time, we have unknowingly mismanaged our forests. We allowed rip and rape logging which sours the attitudes of people who know nothing of forestry. We stopped all burning fires ASAP, no matter what the conditions. Which left a lot of slash that needs burning. Low intensity burns are good for the forest. Which means excess slash is burned. But, high intensity fires kill everything. Non-forest people have no idea of the difference. A good place to see this is west of Missoula, right off I-90. You can see where the firestorms went through and nothing has grown since that fire in 1991. Conversely, the areas that were logged show charred bark on the trunks, but otherwise healthy trees. The fire also kills the beetle cycle and fungi like red rot and purple heart. Two fungi that were prevalent when I was cutting lodgepole in Montana back in the day. Nothing more frustrating that cutting by the stick only to find half the sticks you dump have a fungus. The fungus kills the tree eventually and it becomes fire fodder. Nobody wants to go in and log the area as it's not cost effective anymore.

If you watch the video, the Rep. talks about a surplus 66 mil bf every that builds up into fire fodder. on the other hand, he speaks benevolently of the poor people who have their houses in the TREES, that no one wants to thin. I guaran-goddamn-tee you, those people will be looking for FEDERAL handouts because they won't manage their own property to save their house from fire. Fuck them when the fire rolls through. They are just as much of a problem as the tree huggers. They shut down logging jobs just as much as the huggers do. In fact a lot of them are huggers. But, burn the house down and they stand in line for payment. So, if you are going to represent people on camera you might want to find out how many of them are guilty of what you are preaching against.

I can say all this as I've worked in the woods a few years and I've seen the bullshit from all sides.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Under the necessary and proper clause the only land the Fed gov is allowed to own inside a state is land needed to carry out its enumerated powers. Unless this is a military base or another enumerated power the Fed's should not own one aware inch of land. Now if you want to discard the constitution and go be opinion then you have a lot of company but it does not mean it's lawful.

 

[sandwarrior]

Jerry,

Forest land is considered a resource. I don't know where you are from but seems, not from out west. I can guarantee you that if all the publicly owned land had to be sold tomorrow you would not be near the high bidder. In fact, I will again guarantee you, you will lose access to it

So, what about the BILLIONS of dollars paid to private persons and private entities for losing homes and other property damage caused by fires that they neglected to maintain? That's probably unconstitutional too? I know the POS insurance companies get out of that a lot citing "natural disasters". A single home fire, yeah, they gotta pay. But, not forest/range fires.

I hear a lotta bitchin'. I'll bet not 1 in 10 of you ever worked in the woods.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Forest nor live stock are mentioned in the constitution. Read the constitution I have you the section dealing with land ownership by the Fed government. They are not allowed to own land in states unless it's to support enumerated powers of which none of the activities you state are they constitutionally responsible for. And yes these cash nail outs are not constitutional either.

 

[Milo 2.5]

Jerry,

Forest land is considered a resource. I don't know where you are from but seems, not from out west. I can guarantee you that if all the publicly owned land had to be sold tomorrow you would not be near the high bidder. In fact, I will again guarantee you, you will lose access to it

BINGO !
Sometimes the ramifications of kneejerk reactions bring unwanted consequences. The states will view this land as capital, not wanting the expense to maintain it, it will be sold. Other than smaller tracts of BLM, most will be bought by foreign corporations, and you will never set foot in it again. I doubt too many, if any National Parks are stand alone, I'm in WY and seriously doubt it would bear the expense to keep Yellowstone Park if parks were on the chopping block too. Even if tracts of forest sold to US logging companies, you being in it now a liability.
The Bundy's signed a lease, they did not pay, eviction was in order, no matter who the entity, I sign a loan for house or a car, I don't meet the obligations, it's no longer mine, simple.

 

[ArmyJerry]

Fact is it's still unconstitutional.

 

[Redmanss]

Fact is it's still unconstitutional.

If it was that simple, Utah would have regained the federal land they were promised long ago. They've been fighting it, including in the courts, and it's not black and white. Especially when they have to fight in federal court...

Bottom line is the forests have been "protected" to the point of being in danger to themselves. Responsible logging and pest control is the answer, not a total hands off approach that has come about lately, nor clear cutting and leaving is the answer either. Unfortunately, there just isn't much middle ground being agreed upon in this day and age of politics, as both sides want all or nothing to serve their pocket stuffers.

 

[sandwarrior]

Redmanss,

You said it well. No one in the middle ground on this issue has any say.

The huggers have some unbelievable unseen power behind them. The pro-"take all" logging/corporate conglomerates have an unbelievable amount of power too. Included in this are foreign entities with huge amounts power themselves.

The guys on the ground who want to see this resource perpetuate have to go with the flow of what's in power. Which in the end, kind of balances a little bit. I will say working in the woods during the Bush Sr. years, lessons we're learned and management practices got better...until they got shut down.

 

[cav has been]

Much has been written and spoken about the terrible "clearcuts". Fact, they are just another tool. Some of the best, healthiest stands have grown back after clearcutting. Lodgepole stands for instance, just about the only right way to harvest them. They will not survive even low creeping fire. Other stands as in climax Fir, Ponderosa, Western Larch stands survive low intensity fire well. The fires we are experiencing now, not much survives to include the little fuzzy forest critters, tweety birds, toady frogs, rattle snakes, done, toasted.
As far as turning Fed. land over to the State? A resounding Hell Yes!! Montana DNRC has been administering timber, grazing, oil and coal production, and recreational lands quite successfully for quite some time. To my knowledge they have not turned to selling lands rather than administering them yet. They turn a fair bit of revenue every year and I see few signs of slovenly management or waste. Quite the opposite of the USdeFS.

 

[ArmyJerry]

its really turning state land back to its constitutional owner, the state.

 

[sandwarrior]

its really turning state land back to its constitutional owner, the state.

Yeah, as long as the state wants to pay the tab for all the Feds have put into their state through the years.

I will grant you the Fed management is not always right or fair. Take Malhuer for instance. But, pretty much across the west, ranchers have been able to graze land for very little money. Timber has been harvested in a (mostly) sustainable way. And, while mining has a much freer hand, they now have to at least obey the EPA. You wanna know how shitty your life would be without the EPA? Just go back to the '70's and take a look at pics of the waters/rivers around industrialized cities. Or, the air pollution. As a kid I visited an aunt who lived near LA. When we went over the Ventura grade, you could cut the smog over the valley with a knife. It was said that went on for days.

So, you want to get all constitutional? The necessary and proper clause includes resources needed to keep this country safe. A solid economy is also necessary to keep this country safe. If you disagree with that, go get your lawyer money out and go sue the Federal Government. Besides. if you don't live in that state why are you worried? It's not your state. You got what you want in your state. Somebody else owns the land, and it's not you.

 

[TheBigCountry]

Utah State Rep Mike Noel (R) had about the most perfect comments about that a couple months ago during the Brian Head Fire.

Yup. I was there for that sucker. All that bug kill should have been removed years ago but it become the perfect tinder for fire up in the hills.

 

[Redmanss]

Cav, when I mention clearcuts in criticism, I'm talking about clearcut and leave without putting the land back to a natural state through sculpting and replanting where the forests can regrow, logging trails (mostly) removed, and soil erosion will be minimized. I'm simply speaking of responsible logging and strongly support those efforts, just as I strongly support responsible mining and drilling. I suppose I wasn't fully clear on that, but it's apparent we're both of the same opinion there. I know those practices aren't as widespread as they once were, but they could easily slip back to that if the companies are left to their own devices.

My biggest criticism is of either excessively over or under regulating, both take a big shit on a community in the long run. You would think the greenies would realize vigorous plant growth captures more atmospheric carbon than old slow growth does, that stick built structures are less impactful than concrete and metal built, and they would support the harvesting and replenishment efforts. But, of course, that doesn't fit the objectives of their platform's funders.

Back to the topic at hand, I wish the entire NW a steady rainfall soon, and in the obvious absence of that coming about I wish everyone a quick and safe conclusion to fire season, it's at least right around the corner.

 

[ArmyJerry]

I think the states would make a profit running these national parks as state parks, none the less, the feds are outside their constitutional authority here, period. States have their won DEP's EPA's, etc for as long as there been a Fed EPA, which aint that long its a nixon invention under executive order. For a gun owner you are surprisingly willing to give up total control of your life to the federal government. I grew up in NJ in the 70s I know pollution, lived in Cali in early 80s still polluted then (still a shithole now,just able to see the shithole better now), the cure for LA came from the CARB not the federal government.

Your assertion that the necessary and proper clause giving the government power over the economy is completely false and upside down, hell that is the definition of fascistic government, really. They are not even supposed to keep the country safe, just a secure border. Just because I dont live in one of those states today does not mean I wont in the future, plus the states are part of my country so it is my business when the fed gov abuses another state. Have you actually ever read the Constitution?

Yeah, as long as the state wants to pay the tab for all the Feds have put into their state through the years.

I will grant you the Fed management is not always right or fair. Take Malhuer for instance. But, pretty much across the west, ranchers have been able to graze land for very little money. Timber has been harvested in a (mostly) sustainable way. And, while mining has a much freer hand, they now have to at least obey the EPA. You wanna know how shitty your life would be without the EPA? Just go back to the '70's and take a look at pics of the waters/rivers around industrialized cities. Or, the air pollution. As a kid I visited an aunt who lived near LA. When we went over the Ventura grade, you could cut the smog over the valley with a knife. It was said that went on for days.

So, you want to get all constitutional? The necessary and proper clause includes resources needed to keep this country safe. A solid economy is also necessary to keep this country safe. If you disagree with that, go get your lawyer money out and go sue the Federal Government. Besides. if you don't live in that state why are you worried? It's not your state. You got what you want in your state. Somebody else owns the land, and it's not you.

 

[ArmyJerry]

It actually is black and white and in the Constitution, the Fed gov and the Courts are in violation of the Constitution, period.

https://i2i.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/Land-2.pdf

If it was that simple, Utah would have regained the federal land they were promised long ago. They've been fighting it, including in the courts, and it's not black and white. Especially when they have to fight in federal court...

Bottom line is the forests have been "protected" to the point of being in danger to themselves. Responsible logging and pest control is the answer, not a total hands off approach that has come about lately, nor clear cutting and leaving is the answer either. Unfortunately, there just isn't much middle ground being agreed upon in this day and age of politics, as both sides want all or nothing to serve their pocket stuffers.

 

[sandwarrior]

I think the states would make a profit running these national parks as state parks, none the less, the feds are outside their constitutional authority here, period. States have their won DEP's EPA's, etc for as long as there been a Fed EPA, which aint that long its a nixon invention under executive order. For a gun owner you are surprisingly willing to give up total control of your life to the federal government. I grew up in NJ in the 70s I know pollution, lived in Cali in early 80s still polluted then (still a shithole now,just able to see the shithole better now), the cure for LA came from the CARB not the federal government.

Your assertion that the necessary and proper clause giving the government power over the economy is completely false and upside down, hell that is the definition of fascistic government, really. They are not even supposed to keep the country safe, just a secure border. Just because I dont live in one of those states today does not mean I wont in the future, plus the states are part of my country so it is my business when the fed gov abuses another state. Have you actually ever read the Constitution?

Well then, go plant your ass in the middle of Nevada and take it over. That state has the highest percent of Fed owned land. Go straighten 'em out.

Added: Don't whine to me when you have a bunch of deer and elk hunters start shooting at you because they don't have a place to hunt anymore.