The DW can't find what's she's looking at. We went to Yellowstone up in the north east quadrant and stopped at a turnout where a group was looking at the wolf pack across valley. I took out my then new pair of binoculars I had just purchased from Cabela's in Lehi. I could see them but the DW never could find them.
Can you give me the specs on the binos including brand, Dave? That might help.
We are again looking into the heavens. Following the ISS on those evenings where it has longer fly-overs. The DW asked if we would be able to follow it using a telescope and get a better view. I realize that it would mean constant adjustment. How difficult is it with an amateur telescope? I've used your suggestion of a monopod for the binoculars with some success, the DW can't handle it.
I suppose that anything is possible but it'd be **** hard. A telescope's field of view is very narrow and even finding relatively stationary stars is a challenge by hand. Acquiring a moving object would be nearly impossible.
What is your wife have trouble with?
But if you choose state management and the states are forced to sell much of the land, then you will have MANY MORE restrictions because private property owners likely will not readily allow outdoor recreation. I will take and fight for door #1, even with its flaws.
No one has said who these "private" buyers would be. They are not going to sell Yosemite or the Grand Canyon. Ranchers won't buy the land because they don't want to pay a fixed property tax. If all of the BLM land around me became available for purchase, we'd probably buy about 40 or 50 acres. There would be no other buyers and there are thousands of acres around us. The rancher who grazes here just wants to pay the per head fee. But, he does not want the number of head reduced.
Even so, a few of you continue to bash the feds. Yes, I know it is popular. Here's the deal: I am NOT defending the feds. They are a long ways from perfect. I AM defending our federal lands, because I know what will happen to them if the feds lose control.
I am surprised that on a public lands boondocking thread there are several people against federal land ownership. So I have a question for you: If our public lands disappear, where do you think you are going to boondock? The KOA?
While I still contend that such ownership is unconstitutional, I am not categorically opposed to Federal ownership, I just want them to return to their original mission to work with and for the miners, loggers, ranchers, and recreational users. I believe that that is what the ranchers and Shoshone want also; they want the government to honor the original agreements.
Lensatic :: unfortunately, you stated you'd turn my post on its head, but then failed to do it.
I didn’t mean to imply that I would refute it, just that there was a flip-side to your example.
One of the problematic issues with such designations, it can change minutely over time and number of changes. When a tiny step takes place - it's rationalized as "a tiny step" a very small change. Then over time, twenty small changes becomes a very large changes from the original charter.
Each time, the justification becomes "a tiny change" - but doesn't recognize the accumulation of multiple small revisions. Suddenly it goes from "OK, percent you can lease 20 percent, then next time, OK, it's only 20 percent more - now it's 40 percent ... pretty soon, well we can lease it, why not sell 20 percent and keep 80 percent ...
OK, we can sell 20 percent, why not sell JUST 40 percent ... pretty soon it's, well, let's keep at least 10 percent for the public use. And bingo, we lost nearly every acre of usable public land in tiny steps, and what remains is primarily inaccessible and pushes the remaining wildlife into a small portion of what was once a large wilderness habitat.
Allow me to turn that on it's head. The claim by the western ranchers is that BLM is nibbling away at the number of cattle that they can graze on the federally managed land. Say 1000 head 20 years ago has been reduced to 350 head now. That drives up the price of meat on your grill and down the profit for the rancher which will eventually drive them out of business and off their land.
Central Valley CA: how much do you enjoy eating that Delta Smelt that is driving farmers out of business due to restricted water use?
Building homes along the SOCAL coast. Can't build near El Segundo because of the El Segundo Blue Butterfly. Of course, there is also the Playa Del Rey Blue, Manhattan Beach Blue, El Porto Blue, Hermosa Blue, Redondo Blue, etc. all along the coast. Butterflies are not residents of specific beach cities.
The, so called, environmentalists have infiltrated the "conservationist" organizations in a effort to restrict growth; reduce it, even.
But we are to accept it so that we can camp for free? How about we force the FS and BLM to go back to their original charter to encourage and ensure responsible and profitable natural resource use for all?
When you add management of the national forests into the equation, then you have land management that produces NO revenue. Where will the states get the money to manage that produces NO revenue (beyond hunting and fishing license) -- the states will soon find a way, whether selling it, or leasing mining or drilling, or harvesting rights ... and there goes the quality of our forests.
The lack of harvesting has been responsible for the numerous large forest fires here in the West. BTW, you left out grazing permits on the flatlands.
Like the Animas River in CO? :?
BLM used to manage the local shooting range just up the road from us. The two mile road from the highway to the range was only usable by high-clearance vehicles. Several months ago, BLM transferred control to AZ Game and Fish. AZGFD quickly repaired the road so that it is now easily accessed by all vehicles. The net result is more revenue for the range. They just added a Skeet and Trap shooting range and it already brings in more than the other ranges put together. All of this without raising range fees.
If the States can sell the land to developers it will happen, but if its just more land that they have to maintain, you can bet the States won't like it one bit. Either way, I suspect that we lose
Do you honestly believe that it's that easy to develop land? Boy, do I have a great deal for you! Would you like a brochure?
There are several "developments" around here that have been under development for decades. Another Hollywood myth: "Build it and they will come." The large ranches sell out to these get-rich-quick "developers". The developers grade roads, mark out lots, draw up maps and wait for the buyers to line up ready to build and live the good life. Well, they actually wait until they go bankrupt.
Fly around SE AZ and SW NM in Google Earth and look for all the graded roads in abandoned areas. Essentially, modern developers are building instant Ghost Towns.
May I recommend Glengarry Glen Ross for your viewing pleasure. ;)
You can quit with the Shoshone question. I am not going to answer it. Your first hero was Cliven Bundy. That pretty much says it all.
Thanks for putting words in my post. Clearly, that was the word I was searching for, “Hero.” Bundy was an example of what ranchers are facing in that area and many stood, and still stand, with him. Had my example been Raymond Yowell would you have known who he was? The Shoshone have been fighting BLM since 1951 or so, and losing.
It is time for all federal land users to decide if their heart lies closer to Cliven Bundy (Chief Raymond Yowell – LS) or to Theodore Roosevelt. I am confident the majority will go with Teddy.
Federal Land Users include the ranchers who are raising your food at reasonable prices. The ranchers don’t pay those fees. The fees are added to the cost of a head of cattle and passed on to the consumer. Well, it is until the consumer can’t afford it anymore. And the fees themselves are stripped away to maintain the infrastructure of the bureaucracy, in DC, that collects them. If those fees went to Carson City, instead, I argue that more would be available for land management by the State of Nevada. I do agree with you that most will side with you and Teddy, though.
That said, I'm tired of playing ping-pong. I said that our minds would not be changed and I've made my points, so I'm going to go take my dog for a walk on my neighbors land, BLM land. ;)
From my point of view, you'd have greater redress than through any state entity. Since my point of view has the same amount of facts as your response, it's every bit as valid.
"Just because you're paranoid, doesn't mean they're out to get you"
Did you miss the part where I actually went through this with the state of AZ and it was cleared up in, roughly, 3 months? I consider that "facts". Our U.S. Congressman represented 600,000 people at the time. Do you really think he'd care about my piddly problem?
BTW, I notice a deflection of topic onto my small example rather than the larger issue first raised. At least deflect to the Shoshone as their issue is far more relevant.
Sounds like you have close ties to the oil industry.
As does everyone on RV.net. I mentioned earlier that we hold gas and oil leases from our land in OK. From when I was 0 until 9, my dad was an engineer laying pipeline, to, and building a refinery in Beaumont, TX. After that, he was an engineer on Titan II missile sites in CO. So, I guess I have close ties to nuclear war, too. Add to those: I also have close ties to the cattle, wheat, corn, television, movie, and airline industries. I also have close ties to facts.
Now, how about those Shoshone Indians?
BTW, I noticed that of your 57 posts, only 4 were not on the federal lands issue. Where do your close ties lie?
As you may know, fracking is a relatively new technology.
Not true. Hydraulic fracturing dates back to 1949. I date back to 1950. I will agree that it's a relatively new target of anti-oil activists, though.
That said, we've wandered off the reservation here. Speaking of which, how about those Shoshone?
On the contrary. It is a hypothetical question, but if there was a FEDDOT I would not have stood a chance in hell of anyone even looking into the matter. LSThis is a statement without one bit of fact behind it.
As stated, it's hypothetical question. Do you honestly believe that I would have had any redress, as an individual, if the Feds were forcing me to do what ADOT wanted?
State control can be a double edge sword. For example, fracking is rampant in Wyoming.
Where my situation related only to us, what you describe seems to affect a larger population. Have they gone to their state representatives to address the regulations by tweaking the laws to be more realistic?
I've been oil-drilling adjacent much of my life. As to dust, I assume it's from the drill site and roads put in for the various support vehicles. In my day, the '60s, they oiled the roads and bare dirt. Do they do that now? My experience was with standard rigs and I have no experience with fracking so I'm not sure of the noise level. I believe that most of the problem is with those who surrendered their mineral right in the first place. Are these leases? We still own the mineral rights under our, now sold, OK surface land. The gas well leases are active but the oil sits idle. Send them my way. I can use the money, too. :D
As I understand it, here is your FEDDOT question: Before we could build our house, here, we had to name our road and get an address. Then Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) had to approve. ADOT tried to have us jump through all kinds of hoops that would have cost us between 10 and 20 thousand dollars. I contacted our state representatives and the problem went away in about 3 months. What would have happened if there was a FEDDOT?
I think the answer is simple. No one is proposing that a FEDDOT should have been involved with your issue. I think you should be upset with the State of Arizona for imposing complex rules, not the federal government for what they MIGHT have done IF they had been in charge. If anything, you seem to be making a case against state control. I certainly would agree with that.
On the contrary. It is a hypothetical question, but if there was a FEDDOT I would not have stood a chance in hell of anyone even looking into the matter. If, instead of ADOT, it had been the Cochise County Department of Transportation, then I'd wager that it would have been taken care of in a couple of weeks if not days. The closer the power is to the people the more responsive they will be. The CCDOT chief could well be a neighbor. ;)
ETA: BTW, good discussion, HPD. Neither you nor I will change our minds but others who have no personal experience with BLM and FS may learn something or do some research on their own and come to their own conclusions.
Cliven Bundy owes the American citizens more than a million dollars in unpaid grazing fees. He is now facing numerous federal charges and may end up in prison. I would think you could have picked a better hero to symbolize local control.
It was a name known here. How about Raymond Yowell, a former Shoshone Chief:
Long before Cliven Bundy faced down federal agents in his dispute with the Bureau of Land Management over grazing rights, fellow Nevada rancher Raymond Yowell, an 84-year-old former Shoshone chief, watched as the BLM seized his herd.
Adding to that, since 2008 they've taken his money as well -- in the form of a piece of his Social Security checks.
Yowell's 132 head of cattle had grazed for decades on the South Fork Western Shoshone Indian Reservation in northeastern Nevada until 2002, when the Bureau of Land Management (BLM) -- the same agency at odds with Bundy -- seized them. The federal agency sold the cattle at auction and used the proceeds to pay off the portion of back grazing fees it claimed Yowell owed. Once the cattle was sold, the agency sent Yowell a bill for the outstanding balance, some $180,000. They've been garnishing his monthly Social Security checks since 2008 to satisfy the debt Yowell says he does not owe.
"There’s a definite pattern in the West, beginning in the 1990s, maybe in the late '80s, of what I feel are illegal cattle seizures," Yowell said. " is the latest example of that pattern.”
While Bundy is defying the federal agency over fees for grazing cattle on government-owned land, Yowell's cattle had roamed reservation land. But a 1979 Supreme Court decision held that even land designated for Indian reservations is held in trust for them, and thus subject to BLM regulation. Yowell says treaties that led to creation of the reservation granted him and other herdsmen the right to graze cattle on the land, which they did successfully for decades. The Western Shoshone say they have never relinquished their right to the territory. http://www.foxnews.com/us/2014/04/22/nevada-rancher-former-indian-chief-range-war-with-blm-predates-cliven-bundy.html
I don't know the actual facts in the above cases, but I know better than just to take the Fed's word for it. But, today's BLM and FS is not your Grandfather's BLM and FS. They are NOT your friends.
What about my FEDDOT question?
This is one of the more succinct arguments against transfer that I have read. Too bad the people of Utah didn't read it before they voted last night.
Outdoor INDUSTRY? No vested interest there. I still say control should be closer to the people.
Before we could build our house, here, we had to name our road and get an address. Then Arizona Department of Transportation (ADOT) had to approve. ADOT tried to have us jump through all kinds of hoops that would have cost us between 10 and 20 thousand dollars. I contacted our state representatives and the problem went away in about 3 months. What would have happened if there was a FEDDOT?
I remember Cliven Bundy, a rancher who actually produces food for human consumption, being described as a "freeloader" or some such derogatory epithet. What's that make us who just want to camp free?
A handyman we hired to build our fence told us that he was hiking nearby and kicked an odd looking rock. He picked it up and took it to the U of A in Tucson. Someone in the archeology department told him that he had found a Wooly Mammoth tooth. Then the guy handed it back to him and told him to make a display box and enjoy. He brought the tooth in to show us the next day. I've got a pic of it somewhere and will post it if I find it.
Murray Springs, a Clovis excavation site, is a couple of miles from our house: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Murray_Springs_Clovis_Site
Apparently, they don't need every tooth that's found. ;)
The worst is when it morphs into a more serious condition -- boondockia. No known cure.
That's a fact! My wife and I came down with such a severe case that we ended up buying the land adjacent to one of our favorite boondocking sites, built an off-grid house, and are, essentially, boondocking fulltime. ;)
It is kind of funny how trash-dumps and graffiti from hundreds or thousands of years ago are now considered archeological and anthropological gold mines. By recycling and sandblasting our trash and graffiti are we not depriving future antiquarians life changing discoveries and book deals? ;)