4 ms·

The Federal government made a deal with forrest communities. We will have national forests that you won't get any property tax revenues from, but you will get r

The Federal government made a deal with forrest communities. We will have national forests that you won't get any property tax revenues from, but you will get revenue from the forestry, mining, and other economic activity on that land. Then the federal government shutdown most economic activity, and local communities had to shutdown their schools and other government functions (while at the same time losing their lumber mills). Of course no one that mattered cared because it only impacted 'flyover people' and coastal people don't care if they break their commitments (in the form of the federal government that represents them). I'd love to see sometime in my lifetime the feds get held accountable to keep the promises they made in the past that they just stop keeping, while the feds use the full force of the law to ensure THEIR side of the deals are kept up.

seadan83 2y ago
Which 'deal' specifically, could you provide a link so we can read more?
- bitxbitxbitcoin 2y ago
  Anytime a post references the “feds” in such an ambiguous way, it seems like a flag for potential misunderstanding.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    Why? Because I'm a software person that uses shortcuts and acronyms and instead of typing out 'federal government' used a easily recognized abbreviation?
- bpodgursky 2y ago
  You could look up the original Bureau of Land Management charter by congress, which does in fact mandate that the BLM's charter[1] is to manage federal lands with the goals of sustained resource yield: > The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.[4] They are managed to balance interests to ensure long-term needs, not cannot simply declare that timber, minerals, etc are off-limits: > The government must consider "a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values." The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply decide they don't want to. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Management_Act_of_1976 https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Management_A...
  - bradleyjg 2y ago
    Anglo-American law has a very well defined notion of a deal, and that’s not one. (Same thing with social security btw.)
  - seadan83 2y ago
    Thank you for the response and the reference information to root this conversation. I appreciate this statement, and have one question to ask: > The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply decide they don't want to. Question: if we are going to avoid a tragedy of the commons, wouldn't that mean in some cases you have to say "no"? In the OP article, the BLM is criticized for being too in the pocket of industry and allowing unsustainable resource extraction. Which brings up the point of old growth forests - there are not a lot of them. It makes sense to say "no" here? There are very few old growth forests around, yet they would be very profitable to chop down (let's recall Paul Bunyon chopping down the redwoods, that activity generated piles of cash). Thus the tension. I would want us to focus most on the question that whether to have sustainability, at times you have to say no. For example, you can't go on a diet and then say yes to everything you want to eat - there has to be a time to say no. With regards to how well the BLM has been run, how true it has been to its mission, and particularly over the years as it transitions from various leaders (flip-flopping from conservationist types to industry executives).. (A) I don't know how a coherent policy can be kept when leadership changes like that. (B) Yeah, BLM has a long history that is not great. The National Parks service at Yosemite used to have a bear feeding show that they did daily - where they would have a group of people in an amphitheater watch as they dumped out a bunch of food for bears to come and eat.. I mention that to say that government services/policy do not have a great track record and that I share your feelings that BLM is kinda all over the place and that we both share a lack of love for it.
    - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
      None of the timber mills that closed down were setup to accommodate old growth forest. These isn't enough of it left around here to be viably logged. It was all used up long ago to build Seattle and San Francisco.
BurningFrog 2y ago
Outside of cities, the main ways to make a living is using the natural resources. Logging, mining, farming etc. Laws are made by city people, who think of work as something you do sitting by a desk. They see the countryside as a nature reserve to keep beautiful for their vacation trips. So they ban most commercial use of natural resources. This is part of what makes rural communities poor and desperate societies, surrounded my massive wealth that they "own", but are not allowed to prosper from.
- lantry 2y ago
  yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees. the corp keeps all the profit, and moves on when the trees are gone, and usually leaves a bunch of pollution behind. That's why old mining towns in the appalachians are so prosperous!
  - MSFT_Edging 2y ago
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8 Relevant tune
  - akira2501 2y ago
    > and moves on when the trees are gone Is that how the timber industry works?
  - cscurmudgeon 2y ago
    I think you are unintentionally proving their point. We tightened regulations and have just exported pollution to dictatorships (e.g., CCP). If city folks just do local bans without similar import bans, what is the point? > yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees Or, why not let the poor people decide for themselves? In your story, the only illegal thing the megacorp did was pollution. Why didn't existing laws address that?
  - BurningFrog 2y ago
    Confident assertions in this post: - Loggers were only paid minimum wage. - International megacorps controlled the whole American logging business. - Every single trees were chopped down, without any replanting. Because... international megacorps hate future profits? - Being international (non American), the megacorps made sure to leave pollution behind. - Old Appalachian mining towns were also ravaged by the same internationalist forces.
deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
kubectl_h 2y ago
The rationale(s) for creating National Forests are multitude, but one good reason why they exist is in the Northeast the Green Mountain NF and White Mountain NF form the watersheds of multiple important rivers (Hudson, Connecticut, Androscoggin, etc) that are critical for industry and welfare (drinking water, etc). The federal govt recognized this a century ago and put these forests into management without putting them into 100% preservation and as such created a delicate balance between conservation/preservation and commercial and recreational use. IMO the National Forests are the true jewels of the American conservation system because they set aside some of the most valuable (from a land value perspective) lands in the interest of multiple use.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Right, but the government made a tradeoff with local communities that then don't have a source of property taxes, the standard mechanism in the United States for local community funding. Believe me those of us that chose to live in forests in the modern world that pushes everyone to cities are making big compromises because we LOVE the forests. We also love our children and would like to be able to afford public schools to educate them.
advisedwang 2y ago
This is not about a deal. Even if there was a deal once, I don't care about it. I want our government to set policy responsively to democratic forces and in best interest of its citizens.

seadan83 2y ago

Which 'deal' specifically, could you provide a link so we can read more?

bitxbitxbitcoin 2y ago
Anytime a post references the “feds” in such an ambiguous way, it seems like a flag for potential misunderstanding.
- _DeadFred_ 2y ago
  Why? Because I'm a software person that uses shortcuts and acronyms and instead of typing out 'federal government' used a easily recognized abbreviation?
bpodgursky 2y ago
You could look up the original Bureau of Land Management charter by congress, which does in fact mandate that the BLM's charter[1] is to manage federal lands with the goals of sustained resource yield: > The Congress declares that it is the policy of the United States that goals and objectives be established by law as guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on the basis of multiple use and sustained yield unless otherwise specified by law.[4] They are managed to balance interests to ensure long-term needs, not cannot simply declare that timber, minerals, etc are off-limits: > The government must consider "a combination of balanced and diverse resource uses that takes into account the long-term needs of future generations for renewable and nonrenewable resources, including, but not limited to, recreation, range, timber, minerals, watershed, wildlife and fish, and natural scenic, scientific and historical values." The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply decide they don't want to. [1] https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Management_Act_of_1976 https://ballotpedia.org/Federal_Land_Policy_and_Management_A...
- bradleyjg 2y ago
  Anglo-American law has a very well defined notion of a deal, and that’s not one. (Same thing with social security btw.)
- seadan83 2y ago
  Thank you for the response and the reference information to root this conversation. I appreciate this statement, and have one question to ask: > The deal was very explicitly that federal land was to be managed to avoid a tragedy of the commons with regards to resource extraction. Resource extraction was one of the primary goals mandated by congress and no, they cannot simply decide they don't want to. Question: if we are going to avoid a tragedy of the commons, wouldn't that mean in some cases you have to say "no"? In the OP article, the BLM is criticized for being too in the pocket of industry and allowing unsustainable resource extraction. Which brings up the point of old growth forests - there are not a lot of them. It makes sense to say "no" here? There are very few old growth forests around, yet they would be very profitable to chop down (let's recall Paul Bunyon chopping down the redwoods, that activity generated piles of cash). Thus the tension. I would want us to focus most on the question that whether to have sustainability, at times you have to say no. For example, you can't go on a diet and then say yes to everything you want to eat - there has to be a time to say no. With regards to how well the BLM has been run, how true it has been to its mission, and particularly over the years as it transitions from various leaders (flip-flopping from conservationist types to industry executives).. (A) I don't know how a coherent policy can be kept when leadership changes like that. (B) Yeah, BLM has a long history that is not great. The National Parks service at Yosemite used to have a bear feeding show that they did daily - where they would have a group of people in an amphitheater watch as they dumped out a bunch of food for bears to come and eat.. I mention that to say that government services/policy do not have a great track record and that I share your feelings that BLM is kinda all over the place and that we both share a lack of love for it.
  - _DeadFred_ 2y ago
    None of the timber mills that closed down were setup to accommodate old growth forest. These isn't enough of it left around here to be viably logged. It was all used up long ago to build Seattle and San Francisco.

BurningFrog 2y ago

Outside of cities, the main ways to make a living is using the natural resources. Logging, mining, farming etc. Laws are made by city people, who think of work as something you do sitting by a desk. They see the countryside as a nature reserve to keep beautiful for their vacation trips. So they ban most commercial use of natural resources. This is part of what makes rural communities poor and desperate societies, surrounded my massive wealth that they "own", but are not allowed to prosper from.

lantry 2y ago
yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees. the corp keeps all the profit, and moves on when the trees are gone, and usually leaves a bunch of pollution behind. That's why old mining towns in the appalachians are so prosperous!
- MSFT_Edging 2y ago
  https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6FuTiGdN-i8 Relevant tune
- akira2501 2y ago
  > and moves on when the trees are gone Is that how the timber industry works?
- cscurmudgeon 2y ago
  I think you are unintentionally proving their point. We tightened regulations and have just exported pollution to dictatorships (e.g., CCP). If city folks just do local bans without similar import bans, what is the point? > yes, poor people prosper when international megacorps pay them minimum wage to chop down all their trees Or, why not let the poor people decide for themselves? In your story, the only illegal thing the megacorp did was pollution. Why didn't existing laws address that?
- BurningFrog 2y ago
  Confident assertions in this post: - Loggers were only paid minimum wage. - International megacorps controlled the whole American logging business. - Every single trees were chopped down, without any replanting. Because... international megacorps hate future profits? - Being international (non American), the megacorps made sure to leave pollution behind. - Old Appalachian mining towns were also ravaged by the same internationalist forces.

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

kubectl_h 2y ago

The rationale(s) for creating National Forests are multitude, but one good reason why they exist is in the Northeast the Green Mountain NF and White Mountain NF form the watersheds of multiple important rivers (Hudson, Connecticut, Androscoggin, etc) that are critical for industry and welfare (drinking water, etc). The federal govt recognized this a century ago and put these forests into management without putting them into 100% preservation and as such created a delicate balance between conservation/preservation and commercial and recreational use. IMO the National Forests are the true jewels of the American conservation system because they set aside some of the most valuable (from a land value perspective) lands in the interest of multiple use.

_DeadFred_ 2y ago
Right, but the government made a tradeoff with local communities that then don't have a source of property taxes, the standard mechanism in the United States for local community funding. Believe me those of us that chose to live in forests in the modern world that pushes everyone to cities are making big compromises because we LOVE the forests. We also love our children and would like to be able to afford public schools to educate them.

advisedwang 2y ago

This is not about a deal. Even if there was a deal once, I don't care about it. I want our government to set policy responsively to democratic forces and in best interest of its citizens.