PDA

View Full Version : Our Natural Resources Soon Could Be The Hottest Thing Selling



Skeemer
11-24-2005, 20:15
This appeared in my local paper this morning. I think there was one other thread on the same subject not long ago. Anyway, I think this guy has a lot in common with us, he loves the outdoors and would like to see our public lands protected and not sold off to industry. He also has a lot of credibility...visit his website.
One thing I learned working in industry is they only protect the environment when they have to...not because they want to or care about it. As I subscribe to much of the free enterprise system, only strong environmental laws with stringent penalties will protect our wilderness and wildlife from corporate abuse.
Published on Friday, November 18, 2005 by the Los Angeles Times
Your Birthright, Up For Grabs
For sale cheap: 270 million acres of national forest and public land. It could happen under a budget bill being debated in Congress
by Mike Dombeck


All my life, I have introduced people to our nation's public lands, as a seasonal fishing guide in the Upper Midwest, as the head of the Bureau of Land Management and as the chief of the U.S. Forest Service — agencies that manage hundreds of millions of acres of public land. One thing I learned was that Americans love their national forests, parks and grasslands.

Americans inherit a birthright that is the envy of the world: hundreds of millions of acres scattered across all regions of the country. The public estate includes famous places, such as Yellowstone National Park, and obscure places that make up picnic spots, fishing holes and weekend getaways. It has been that way for 100 years, thanks to the conservation legacy sparked by President Theodore Roosevelt.

Unfortunately, our federal public lands are now under siege in Congress. It seems that some folks simply do not like the idea of the public owning land. These radicals and ideologues are taking advantage of the fact that Americans are preoccupied with economic insecurity, high fuel prices and a war abroad to promote their personal interests by pushing language in the federal budget bill that would put a "for sale" sign on 270 million acres of national forest and other public land.

Here's how it would work:

Congress would reinstate an obscure, obsolete portion of an 1872 mining law. This would allow mining companies to stake claims on public land and eventually take ownership through a process called "patenting." (Congress, with good reason, stopped allowing patenting in 1994.)

But the greed-driven special interest supporters aren't stopping there. They want to expand the sale of public lands to allow any individual or corporation to stake a mining claim and purchase it without having to prove that it contains minerals. This is so broadly defined as to enable developers, for example, to buy federal land at bargain-basement prices and "flip" it quickly for projects such as ski chalets or housing units.

The public would never stand for this if it were done in the open, so the provision was tucked inside the huge budget-cutting bill being considered by Congress this week. There, it was obscured by bigger issues, such as offshore drilling.

There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law's patenting provisions to get their hands on public resources dirt cheap. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo "patented" — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than $400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. In 1983, Mark Hinton patented national forest land adjacent to the Keystone ski resort in Colorado. He later sold the parcel for more than 4,000 times what he paid for it. In 1994, American Barrick Corp. patented about 1,000 acres of public land in Nevada. That land contained more than $10 billion in gold reserves. But under the 1872 mining law, it paid only $5,000 for the land and paid not a dime in royalties to the federal Treasury.

No wonder Congress has prohibited such land deals ever since. Taxpayers were getting a raw deal.

Now a few folks in Congress want to turn back the clock. The results of these policies will be a fleecing of the American taxpayer and a cheating of future generations of public land.

Theodore Roosevelt put it this way: "The nation behaves well if it treats the natural resources as assets which it must turn over to the next generation increased, and not impaired, in value."

That kind of leadership is why Roosevelt's face is carved on Mt. Rushmore. The leadership we are seeing in some dark corners of Congress will leave Americans with a much different legacy.

Mike Dombeck, a professor at the University of Wisconsin-Stevens Point, served as the acting director of the Bureau of Land Management from 1994 to 1997 and chief of the U.S. Forest Service from 1997 to 2001.

© 2005 Los Angeles Time

Cookerhiker
11-24-2005, 21:02
What revolting news for thanksgiving Day! Mike Dombeck, the author of this article, is hardly a radical; he's a former Forest Service Chief, the agency of "multiple use."

But I'm not surprised. And it's not just money-driven although that certainly greases the skids - it's the ideology that makes up modern day "conservatives". The right-wing idealogues running Washington these days froth with pathological hatred over anything public, any concept of the public good or commonwealth. Guys like Grover Norquist who famously advocated reducing government to the "size where it can be flushed down the toilet" are far outside the mainstream but in this administration, they have a seat at the table. By the way, Norquist's first public comment when 9/11 occurred was a lamentation that this tragedy would result in expanding the government.

These people have no conservation ethic at all. And they're desperate to push their extreme agenda even harder given Bush's current unpopularity and the possibility of losing control over Congress in the 2006 elections.

weary
11-24-2005, 21:25
I find it hard to understand why American voters allow such blatant "corruption" to continue. And yes it is corruption, legal or not.

But perhaps the comment by the Goat to a warning from the American Hiking Society gives us a hint. When I offered an earlier notice of the planned land grab, White Blaze's sometime "humorist" dismissed the threat with, "sounds like chicken little to me."

Tha Wookie
11-24-2005, 23:47
Take note everyone, and pull these notes out at the next election.

You know who's responsible.

Until then, call your representatives!

We must fight back!

Teatime
11-25-2005, 02:16
Oh, the L.A. Times. Now that is an unbiased paper. Just to let all you Bush hating liberals out there know. I will be voting Republican across the board during the 2006 elections. Okay, now you can start your attacks on me.

Tha Wookie
11-25-2005, 02:35
Oh, the L.A. Times. Now that is an unbiased paper. Just to let all you Bush hating liberals out there know. I will be voting Republican across the board during the 2006 elections. Okay, now you can start your attacks on me.

Don't worry, we don't need Rush Limbaugh tactics. We just pay attention to the issues that impact hiking.

They speak for themselves.

FYI, Mikes Dombeck is not an employee of the LA times.

Nearly Normal
11-25-2005, 04:20
Who are these radicals in congress exactly? :dance
Name these bozos!

Pete

Skeemer
11-25-2005, 07:59
Thanks Tha Wookie for:
Don't worry, we don't need Rush Limbaugh tactics...

One thing 95% of us who visit Whiteblaze have in common is we love the Trail...we love to backpack...we love being in the woods...we love climbing a hill to look out and see nothing but the next mountain range. Just like others love to play golf or shoot defenseless animals for sport or sit around getting fat while watching porn...well, you get the idea. The Bush administration and the Republicans have put this in jeopardy.

Teatime, take a break from yelling "Go Patenting!" and visit Dombeck's website and return here and let us know what you think.

(Please note the time and date of this posting...I am not in line at BestBuy waiting to get one of those Xbox things.)

Skeemer
11-25-2005, 08:16
There are plenty of examples of how companies have used the 1872 mining law's patenting provisions to get their hands on public resources dirt cheap. In 1970, Frank Melluzzo "patented" — bought — public land near Phoenix for $150. Ten years later, he sold it for more than $400,000. Today, the Pointe Hilton Hotel in Phoenix sits on this mining claim. In 1983, Mark Hinton patented national forest land adjacent to the Keystone ski resort in Colorado. He later sold the parcel for more than 4,000 times what he paid for it. In 1994, American Barrick Corp. patented about 1,000 acres of public land in Nevada. That land contained more than $10 billion in gold reserves. But under the 1872 mining law, it paid only $5,000 for the land and paid not a dime in royalties to the federal Treasury.

Now do you see why Blue Jay is the way he is?

smokymtnsteve
11-25-2005, 15:21
Oh, the L.A. Times. Now that is an unbiased paper. Just to let all you Bush hating liberals out there know. I will be voting Republican across the board during the 2006 elections. Okay, now you can start your attacks on me.

well aren't you a progressive thinker... sheeple, what if the repugs run a vilage idiot?

Newb
11-26-2005, 10:06
I just read Amanda "bubble toes" Luffs' journal at trailjournals.com. She had an alarming observation as she entered the 100 mile wilderness in Maine. Her introduction to this "wilderness" was a constant rattle of chain-saws and the persistent movent of trucks and trains.

MOWGLI
11-26-2005, 10:40
I just read Amanda "bubble toes" Luffs' journal at trailjournals.com. She had an alarming observation as she entered the 100 mile wilderness in Maine. Her introduction to this "wilderness" was a constant rattle of chain-saws and the persistent movent of trucks and trains.

People see & hear what they are capable of seeing & hearing. I remember encountering a southbounder somewhere in NH and asking him about Maine. I specifically asked him about logging and clearcuts. He said he saw no evidence of that.

Now, either he misunderstood me or doesn't know what a working forest sounds & looks like. I heard feller bunchers every day in the so-called 100-Mile Wilderness.

Don't get me wrong - it is a beautiful area, and is especially worthy of protection. Weary's Maine Appalachian Trail Land Trust is doing great work. What is especially troubling is the current transition from forestry to home development. The views from many of the high peaks could soon become impaired - pretty much forever. Personally, if given the choice between the two, I'd rather see a clearcut than a cluster of homes. At the trees will grow back.

The fact is though that the AT corridor passes through areas where industrial forests take place. There is no National Forest or National Park land in Maine - at least where the AT is concerned.

Back to the issue at hand, the threats to public land because of the effort to shepard through a provision buried in a budget bill are very real. The real scam is the fact that lawmakers want to push this through without any public commentary. If y'all have the time, a letter or call to your Congressman would be time well spent.

Skeemer
11-26-2005, 23:53
...was too modest in #3 of this thread.

Everyone, please go to "iraqi leaders call for timetable..." thread and read his remarks on #21 He lays it out there.

Whoops, forgot I was back to being a die hard repug and didn't have to care anymore, oh well I'll let it go this time.

saimyoji
11-26-2005, 23:57
Sorry, I feel like the thread placement police today. Why is this in the articles section? Is this being edited to become an article? Am I missing the point on what articles are supposed to be here?

Skeemer
11-27-2005, 11:37
I see what you're saying...only articles on hiking should appear in the "Articles" section. Sorry about that:o ...will try to pay more attention to the rules in the future...but don't hold your breath.

saimyoji
11-27-2005, 23:29
No sweat, we keep each other in check. You should see some of the crap I've posted before....