Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 32

Thread: The Feds are up to no good

  1. #1
    New member
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Wasilla and winter in Arizona
    Posts
    4

    Post The Feds are up to no good

    The Feds are up to no good.Click image for larger version. 

Name:	image.jpg 
Views:	664 
Size:	92.2 KB 
ID:	88341

  2. #2
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by dlzbrg View Post
    The Feds are up to no good.
    Aren't they always...???
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  3. #3
    Member hogfamily's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    Anchorage Suburbanites, part time Willowbillies, Appleseeds, and Weekend Warrior Turquoise Miners!
    Posts
    1,094

  4. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    199

    Default

    And they just took my buddy's cabin that his family has owned since the 50's

  5. #5
    Member 4merguide's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Kenai Peninsula, Alaska
    Posts
    9,749

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadWolf View Post
    And they just took my buddy's cabin that his family has owned since the 50's
    Where was that?
    Sheep hunting...... the pain goes away, but the stupidity remains...!!!

  6. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Up near the Denali hwy...can't hardly see straight it's so maddening

  7. #7

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadWolf View Post
    Up near the Denali hwy...can't hardly see straight it's so maddening
    what are they doing?

  8. #8
    New member
    Join Date
    Oct 2015
    Posts
    5

    Default

    If at all possible we need every one out at these meetings let Feds know they are destroying traditions, and the future of Alaska.

  9. #9
    Member Blue Thunder's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    North of Anchor Pt
    Posts
    682

    Default

    Anyone have info on the USFW meeting in Soldotna on 2/16 next Tuesday. Time and location
    Retirement Plan - Having Fun and Still Learning

  10. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Anchorage
    Posts
    199

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by TwinTrapper View Post
    what are they doing?
    I believe the gist of it is "Remember that 100 yr lease you had? Well you don't anymore."

  11. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DeadWolf View Post
    I believe the gist of it is "Remember that 100 yr lease you had? Well you don't anymore."
    As the holder of one of those leases, I can speak to the absurdity of the process.

    Those leases are renewed every 5 years at USFS, or BLM or whomevers discretion. They can essentially kick you out at any time they chose. It's a huge power grab and leaves the leasee without recourse and at a potentially huge financial loss. They don't care, since we are nothing more than trespassers on their lands and administrative headaches that they would rather do without. Can you tell I'm just a little upset about this? They do not care!

    God bless John Sturgeon for taking the fight to them.

  12. #12
    Member Sterlingmike's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Sterling, AK
    Posts
    293

    Default

    Kenai Wildlife Refuge Center starting at 5:30 today, 2/16/16. I can't make it there but commented online. Also saw an ad from them for special use permits which includes "the Kenai River within Refuge boundaries." Wait until they start regulating the fishing on the Kenai. Regulations from D.C. for Alaskans.............

    M
    Last edited by Sterlingmike; 02-16-2016 at 11:28. Reason: spelling

  13. #13
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2014
    Location
    Alaska
    Posts
    1,905

    Default

    I would like to know what the percentage is of Refuge managers, not summertime temporary employees, are actual Alaskans. By that I mean, lived here most of their lives, or born here. If I had to guess, I would say the majority of them were born, raised, and educated somewhere other than Alaska. Then they get hired here by other non-Alaskan migrants, and begin attempting to turn our lands into Sierra Club, 'take nothing but photos leave nothing but footprints' wilderness for their own enjoyment. Screw the locals.
    Rant over......for now.
    Hunt Ethically. Respect the Environment.

  14. #14
    New member
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Posts
    2

    Default

    I just went grouse hunting on lands managed by the federal government. My freezer is full of deer shot on lands managed by the forest service. Next week I'll be bear hunting on lands managed by the forest service. Pretty much the only time I haven't been able to hunt or fish is when land is privately owned. I'm extremely lucky to have been born in a state consisting of primarily federal land. In my experience down south federal land is easier to access and hunt on than state land. Many states charge access fees. Washington's silly "discover pass" comes to mind. A few years ago my wife and I took road trip down to Arizona to spend a couple weeks chasing small game. State managed lands were generally filled with trashed and very overgrazed. We had some excellent hunting on lands managed by the BLM.

  15. #15
    New member
    Join Date
    Nov 2015
    Location
    Wasilla
    Posts
    12

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Thuja View Post
    State managed lands were generally filled with trashed and very overgrazed. We had some excellent hunting on lands managed by the BLM.
    And this is one of the issues that bothers me about the calls to transfer federal lands to the states. The states' constitutions mandate that the lands be managed for maximum profitability since the land use fees are tied to funding schools or other public entities. The federal lands are managed for sustainable multiple uses. The state lands I have seen tend to be over-used and pretty well thrashed. In Arizona, the state would swap degraded lands with the Federal agencies. They got better grazing lands and the Feds would try to rehabilitate the ex-state lands.

  16. #16
    Member cdubbin's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Location
    KP, the dingleberry of Alaska
    Posts
    1,751

    Default

    The state land use guidelines up here are pretty awesome, provided you don't get too crazy....you can build and maintain trails, cut firewood, even build permanent structures. My family's had a permanent moose camp on state land for 30 years....the only times we've had troopers out there, they look around, say "hey, nice camp," and scoot. Not as doable on federal land. I've had plenty of unpleasant encounters with LEO's in my life, but the worst have been with NPS....they can be some arrogant sob's. I remember going in to the Kenai Refuge headquarters back when I was eligible to get a subsistence moose permit...the lady at the desk asked me, "why would you want to do that?"....."uh, do what?" I asked...."shoot a moose."....she said. Then I got the runaround and no permit.
    " Gas boats are bad enough, autos are an invention of the devil, and airplanes are worse." ~Allen Hasselborg

  17. #17
    Member AlpineEarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Location
    Usually somewhere I don't want to be.
    Posts
    408

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by sayak View Post
    As outlined in the Constitution, the federal government's role was limited and its control of land was limited and controlled as well. If Americans believe the federal government should own the bulk of the land (a hallmark of socialism BTW), then they should consider an amendment to grant that control. As it is, the power to hold onto vast tracts of land has been taken by fiat. Some see this as good, others as a power grab. I'm somewhere in between.
    No amendment is needed. This is one of the biggest myths promulgated by those who disagree with federal land ownership. Article 4 is exceedingly clear and this false Skousen is absurd and has been rejected by even the most conservative courts for the past 200 years. The Supreme court has ruled on this issue numerous times. I'd post an article or some legal analysis for support, but it would be rejected without consideration. Fact is lost on those who reject any assertion they do not agree with. So here's the basis. 1.) Article 4 of the Constitution. The whole thing. Those who say they follow the Constitution only have to read it. It's clear.
    2.) Jonson v M'Intosh, a case from 1823 The Supreme Court decided that it has no authority to sanction any land ownership rights that do not originate from the Federal government.
    3.)The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 1848. Basically the treaty where the Feds acquired CA, TX, AZ
    4.)ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM ACONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT.
    5.)Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/523/
    6.)United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/506/
    7.)http://openjurist.org/295/us/1 Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935.

    No articles, only fact. Read them if you like, dismiss them if you choose. But it's a long established fact that the Feds own and control land and all property claims are subject to it's approval. Any argument that contends otherwise has been dismissed since the day the Constitution was written. Debating that basic fact is as pointless as arguing whether owls exist, or are there shoes, or which number is bigger 5 or 15.

  18. #18
    Supporting Member iofthetaiga's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Tanana Valley AK
    Posts
    7,217

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by AlpineEarl View Post
    No amendment is needed. This is one of the biggest myths promulgated by those who disagree with federal land ownership. Article 4 is exceedingly clear and this false Skousen is absurd and has been rejected by even the most conservative courts for the past 200 years. The Supreme court has ruled on this issue numerous times. I'd post an article or some legal analysis for support, but it would be rejected without consideration. Fact is lost on those who reject any assertion they do not agree with. So here's the basis. 1.) Article 4 of the Constitution. The whole thing. Those who say they follow the Constitution only have to read it. It's clear.
    2.) Jonson v M'Intosh, a case from 1823 The Supreme Court decided that it has no authority to sanction any land ownership rights that do not originate from the Federal government.
    3.)The Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. 1848. Basically the treaty where the Feds acquired CA, TX, AZ
    4.)ACT OF CONGRESS (1864) ENABLING THE PEOPLE OF NEVADA TO FORM ACONSTITUTION AND STATE GOVERNMENT.
    5.)Light v. United States, 220 U.S. 523 (1911) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/523/
    6.)United States v. Grimaud, 220 U.S. 506 (1911) https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/220/506/
    7.)http://openjurist.org/295/us/1 Before Oregon was admitted to statehood, the United States is shown to have acquired title which it has never in terms conveyed away," Justice Harlan Stone wrote in 1935.

    No articles, only fact. Read them if you like, dismiss them if you choose. But it's a long established fact that the Feds own and control land and all property claims are subject to it's approval. Any argument that contends otherwise has been dismissed since the day the Constitution was written. Debating that basic fact is as pointless as arguing whether owls exist, or are there shoes, or which number is bigger 5 or 15.
    ..........
    You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to AlpineEarl again.
    ...he who knows nothing is nearer to truth than he whose mind is filled with falsehoods & errors. ~Thomas Jefferson
    I would rather have a mind opened by wonder than one closed by belief. ~Gerry Spence
    The last thing Alaska needs is another bigot. ~member Catch It
    #Resist

  19. #19
    Forum Admin Brian M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2005
    Location
    Eagle River, AK
    Posts
    13,393

    Default

    This thread has been significantly trimmed. While we do allow political discussion as it directly relates to Alaskan resource management, we ask that the discussion stay focused on the matter at hand and not get off into the weeds. I enjoy reading and discussing political philosophy more than most, but this is not the place.

  20. #20
    Member sayak's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Location
    Central peninsula, between the K-rivers
    Posts
    5,790

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brian M View Post
    This thread has been significantly trimmed. While we do allow political discussion as it directly relates to Alaskan resource management, we ask that the discussion stay focused on the matter at hand and not get off into the weeds. I enjoy reading and discussing political philosophy more than most, but this is not the place.
    My last post fit your criteria Brian. In was not incendiary nor overly political, and stayed focused on the issue in the original post. Not sure why post number 17, which I answered, is still there.
    But I am done, so no worries. Jousting appeals to me less and less as the years go by.

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •