Taking of public property by private entities

\\OFF-TOPIC// conversations about everything that has nothing to do with Conquer Club.

Moderators: Global Moderators, Community Team

Forum rules
Please read the Community Guidelines before posting.

Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:14 am

here is another article, probably better at detailing the reason I am upset.

http://ecowatch.com/2012/oil-gas-drillers/
There is nothing in the congressional record indicating that Congress did not intend for the Forest Service to regulate private oil and gas drilling activities in eastern national forests. In fact, just the opposite is true. The congressional record reveals that Congress intended the Forest Service to have the same power over eastern national forests as it had over national forests in the western U.S. That would include the authority to require private oil and gas companies to implement reasonable mitigation measures to reduce their environmental impact in the Allegheny National Forest.

Furthermore, the Weeks Act required that the federal government obtain consent from the state legislature prior to establishment of national forests in the state. In May 1911, the Pennsylvania legislature expressly consented to the creation of what would eventually become the Allegheny National Forest. The Pennsylvania legislature said that the federal government would have authority to pass laws that “in its judgment may be necessary for the management, control and protection” of national forest lands. In other words, the Pennsylvania legislature unambiguously turned over the “management, control and protection” of lands that would become the Allegheny National Forest to the federal government.

A century later, the oil and gas industry is attempting to erase this history. Earlier this year, the Pennsylvania legislature enacted Act 13. Most people are aware of this legislation because it stripped local municipalities from being able to pass ordinances aimed at protecting communities from the onslaught of shale gas drilling.

Another provision of the act, however, allegedly “clarified” the 1911 legislation consenting to the creation of the Allegheny National Forest. Act 13 says that the original consent legislation was never intended to allow the federal government, through the Forest Service, to regulate oil and gas companies in the Allegheny National Forest.

Of course, if the Pennsylvania legislature intended such a result, it could have easily inserted such a provision in 1911. Oil and gas drilling had been around for approximately 50 years at that point, so the state legislature in 1911 was certainly aware of the issue. The current state legislature cannot revoke or modify the consent of the 1911 state legislature.



http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/dis ... 5/92403/42

Tried to find more data, for something that would actually impact all of us, potentially changing how government land is managed across the country, this case is getting remarkably little press.


I cannot access the original artical without payment,.but basically, the Forest Service is contending that they have the right to place reasonable restrictions on the access of mineral rights. In the past, this has included specifications regarding road building (largely to protect water resources, but also some other safety issues like traffic concerns). time limitations (to protect various species or the integrity of the land... big rigs moving over wet ground cause a LOT of damage, just as an example, and requiring companies to wait until ground is dry does a lot to protect the surface).

Judge McLaughlin rules that the forest service has no right to limit access because PA law holds mineral rights dominant over mineral rights (note, this means that if someone wants to build an oil derrick right next to my house, they can and I have no say over it, so this actually is a far reaching concept... it also means that municipalities are forbidden from putting restrictions on drillers to protect reservoirs or anything else on the surface, but this stretches it to federal lands).
HUH... basically this judge is declaring that state law supercedes federal rights and rules. The argument against involves the Weeks act and its history. (you can read into that law more, but basically it gave the federal government authority to buy lands to make public forests, in large part to protect watersheds and public water resources)
Signed into law by President William Howard Taft, the Weeks Act permitted the federal government to purchase private land in order to protect the headwaters of rivers and watersheds in the eastern United States and called for fire protection efforts through federal, state, and private cooperation


There are many problems with this, but the most obvious is that this judge puts state law above Federal law, and it is on that basis that the US Forest Service and other entities are objecting.

Do I think this suit will succeed? No, because Marsallus shale interests are way to heavy, also because there is a mistaken belief that private entities will somehow better protect us than private ones. This is a very prime example of how that does NOT happen. In fact, the whole history of the Forest Service (and you might as well add in Rangelands, reserves as well).


Just for some more background, when I say “taking”, I am not speaking lightly. The Allegheny Forest has been a major source of hunting, hiking and other recreation for the region and beyond. EACH Marsallus shale platform winds up clearing 5 acres, that is without even getting into the more long term impacts like if the fracking fluid leaks into the watershed (would destroy multiple towns). Hunting was already down, but this is literally killing it off. Recreational opportunities are similarly diminished, both because of the direct loss of forested land, the noise, and the many, many trucks driving on the rural roads.
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:36 am, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 20, 2013 10:44 am

The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Wed Mar 20, 2013 12:08 pm

I'm unclear as where the "taking" of "public property" occurs here.

Based on my reading of the facts, the Allegheny National Forest ("ANF" below) was originally owned by private individuals. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the federal government purchased the surface rights from private individuals. Those private individuals retained the rights to the minerals underneath the surface. Through various federal laws and regulations (which may be where Player is going with this), the private individual can access the mineral rights if the individual only provides a minor disturbance. These sorts of agreements existed from 1981 (when the case below was decided) through 2008 and now these agreements have changed. I wonder why.

In any event, the private property owner is requesting access to his private property underneath the surface of public property. Prior to 2008, the private property owner and the federal government could and would agree to the extraction of the minerals. So there is no taking. And there is certainly no taking of public property.

The respective property rights of the ANF surface owner and the private owners of
outstanding mineral rights were addressed in United States v. Minard Run Oil Co., 1980
U.S. Dist. Lexis 9570 (W.D. Pa. 1980). In Minard Run, the court held that the owner of
mineral rights had an “unquestioned right” to enter the property to access and extract his
minerals. Id. at *13. Recognizing that the owner of the dominant estate had an obligation
to reduce unnecessary disturbance of the surface estate, the Court prescribed what it
characterized as “minor restrictions which . . . should not seriously hamper the extraction
of oil and gas.” Specifically, the Court ordered oil and gas drillers to provide the following
details “no less than 60 days in advance” of commencing drilling operations:
(1) A designated field representative
(2) A map showing the location and dimensions of all
improvements including but not limited to well sites and road and
pipeline accesses.
(3) A plan of operations, of an interim character if necessary,
setting forth a schedule for construction and drilling.
(4) A plan of erosion and sedimentation control . . .
(5) Proof of ownership of mineral title.


The 1984 ANF Handbook provides guidance for Forest Service personnel in handling oil
and gas proposals. With respect to outstanding and reserved mineral rights, the Handbook
incorporates each of the requirements set forth in Minard Run, including the requirement
that the Forest Service receive 60 days advance notice from the oil and gas operators. The
2 The EIS that accompanied the 1986 Forest Plan assessed the cumulative
impacts of oil and gas activities in the ANF as they relate to the policies and
practices underlying the Forest Service’s land management and stewardship
functions. That EIS did not serve as a precondition to individual oil and gas
drilling activities or a bar to those activities proceeding. (Hearing, July 25,
2009, p. 91).
9
Handbook notes that those conditions “are now standard operating procedures on the ANF
and in the Eastern Region of the USFS.” (Plaintiffs’ Ex. A-15).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby oVo on Wed Mar 20, 2013 1:04 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.
User avatar
Major oVo
 
Posts: 3843
Joined: Fri Jan 26, 2007 1:41 pm
Location: Antarctica
Medals: 10
Standard Achievement (2) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1)
Fog of War Achievement (1) Trench Warfare Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:03 pm

oVo wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.


No (private) developer--no matter greedy--could do such a thing without the government's use of force.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:25 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I'm unclear as where the "taking" of "public property" occurs here.

Based on my reading of the facts, the Allegheny National Forest ("ANF" below) was originally owned by private individuals. In the late 19th century and early 20th century, the federal government purchased the surface rights from private individuals. Those private individuals retained the rights to the minerals underneath the surface. Through various federal laws and regulations (which may be where Player is going with this), the private individual can access the mineral rights if the individual only provides a minor disturbance. These sorts of agreements existed from 1981 (when the case below was decided) through 2008 and now these agreements have changed. I wonder why.
In any event, the private property owner is requesting access to his private property underneath the surface of public property. Prior to 2008, the private property owner and the federal government could and would agree to the extraction of the minerals. So there is no taking. And there is certainly no taking of public property.


You got most of it correct, except for a couple of points. First, the acreage involved here is extremely signficant, I would estimate we are talking a minimum of 10% of the forest, but it could be much more in some areas. Normally, the Forest service can set limits to the access to protect wildlife, timber, other surface interests, including public safety. These guys want NONE of that. They, literally drive 40 -50 miles an hour over dirt roads past houses with kids, families. They log a minimum of 5-10 acres, (contrasted with maybe a quarter acre to at most an acre for a conventional well), they house people on site, keep it lit 24 hours a day, and are just generally extremely intrusive to the point that other uses of the forest are very difficult or impossible.

The respective property rights of the ANF surface owner and the private owners of
outstanding mineral rights were addressed in United States v. Minard Run Oil Co., 1980
U.S. Dist. Lexis 9570 (W.D. Pa. 1980). In Minard Run, the court held that the owner of
mineral rights had an “unquestioned right” to enter the property to access and extract his
minerals. Id. at *13. Recognizing that the owner of the dominant estate had an obligation
to reduce unnecessary disturbance of the surface estate, the Court prescribed what it
characterized as “minor restrictions which . . . should not seriously hamper the extraction
of oil and gas.” Specifically, the Court ordered oil and gas drillers to provide the following
details “no less than 60 days in advance” of commencing drilling operations:
(1) A designated field representative
(2) A map showing the location and dimensions of all
improvements including but not limited to well sites and road and
pipeline accesses.
(3) A plan of operations, of an interim character if necessary,
setting forth a schedule for construction and drilling.
(4) A plan of erosion and sedimentation control . . .
(5) Proof of ownership of mineral title.




The 1984 ANF Handbook provides guidance for Forest Service personnel in handling oil
and gas proposals. With respect to outstanding and reserved mineral rights, the Handbook
incorporates each of the requirements set forth in Minard Run, including the requirement
that the Forest Service receive 60 days advance notice from the oil and gas operators. The
2 The EIS that accompanied the 1986 Forest Plan assessed the cumulative
impacts of oil and gas activities in the ANF as they relate to the policies and
practices underlying the Forest Service’s land management and stewardship
functions. That EIS did not serve as a precondition to individual oil and gas
drilling activities or a bar to those activities proceeding. (Hearing, July 25,
2009, p. 91).
9
Handbook notes that those conditions “are now standard operating procedures on the ANF
and in the Eastern Region of the USFS.” (Plaintiffs’ Ex. A-15).
[/quote]

Those things are not being done in this case. Just as an example, local emergency personnel don’t even know where these rigs are many times. They get calls for fires and well leaks and find so many new roads that they have no knowledge of (I mean people who know these woods and go out every few months to hunt, fish, etc. as well as to do things like picking berries, leeks, etc.).

The Gas drillers are asserting that the companies don’t have to do the above.

The weeks act argument is that these lands were specifically purchased to protect watersheds. The impact of these drillers is negating that, AND all other uses that citizens expect from national forests.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:26 pm

oVo wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.

Key words there "Bush administration".
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Thu Mar 21, 2013 4:27 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
oVo wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.

Key words there "Bush administration".


So the Executive ordered this to occur?
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 2:59 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
oVo wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.

Key words there "Bush administration".


So the Executive ordered this to occur?


And are you quite sure this was the Forest Service that did this?
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:04 pm

The Allegheny Forest has been a major source of hunting, hiking and other recreation for the region and beyond.


I think this thread is missing the fact that National Forests aren't National Parks. Their statutory purpose is as resource extraction zones. They don't exist for environmental preservation or park-like frolicking. That's why they're managed by the Agriculture Department, instead of the Interior Department.

    high protection criteria
    1. National Refuge
    2. National Park
    3. National Monument
    4. National Preserve / National Recreation Area
    5. National Forest
    no protection criteria
If you feel a National Forest needs protection or is important for park-like uses, the solution is to write your government and ask it be re-designated a National Park.

basically this judge is declaring that state law supercedes federal rights and rules


The shared use principle has always recognized dual interests. To continue with the hunting example, national areas are usually governed by state hunting laws, since migrating wildlife are very rude anarchists and have little respect for the law - they tend not to stop at federal boundary lines to check-in and just gallop past wildlife biologists and rangers like they just don't give a damn. See:

    Mojave National Preserve
    Hunting is permitted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) regulations. A California Hunting License is required; additional permits and tags may apply. Please be prepared to present your hunting license and/or tags if requested by an NPS park ranger or state game warden.

    http://www.nps.gov/moja/planyourvisit/hunting.htm
Last edited by saxitoxin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:27 pm, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 4:26 pm

I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:22 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
The Allegheny Forest has been a major source of hunting, hiking and other recreation for the region and beyond.


I think this thread is missing the fact that National Forests aren't National Parks. Their statutory purpose is as resource extraction zones. They don't exist for environmental preservation or park-like frolicking. That's why they're managed by the Agriculture Department, instead of the Interior Department.

    high protection criteria
    1. National Refuge
    2. National Park
    3. National Monument
    4. National Preserve / National Recreation Area
    5. National Forest
    no protection criteria
If you feel a National Forest needs protection or is important for park-like uses, the solution is to write your government and ask it be re-designated a National Park.

basically this judge is declaring that state law supercedes federal rights and rules


The shared use principle has always recognized dual interests. To continue with the hunting example, national areas are usually governed by state hunting laws, since migrating wildlife are very rude anarchists and have little respect for the law - they tend not to stop at federal boundary lines to check-in and just gallop past wildlife biologists and rangers like they just don't give a damn. See:

    Mojave National Preserve
    Hunting is permitted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) regulations. A California Hunting License is required; additional permits and tags may apply. Please be prepared to present your hunting license and/or tags if requested by an NPS park ranger or state game warden.

    http://www.nps.gov/moja/planyourvisit/hunting.htm

Oh, please... if you wish to instruct me on the purpose of the US Forest service, you might begin with 20 years experiece, like I have.

Where there is fracking, there is no true "multiple use" any longer. The FS has been accused of that in the past, in regards to timber harvest, sometimes with reason. Even so, that impact is not as permanent as this portends... and the worst abuses of the Timber industry are now regulated. In this case, the regulatory bodies are being told "hands off".
Last edited by PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:42 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:35 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
The Allegheny Forest has been a major source of hunting, hiking and other recreation for the region and beyond.


I think this thread is missing the fact that National Forests aren't National Parks. Their statutory purpose is as resource extraction zones. They don't exist for environmental preservation or park-like frolicking. That's why they're managed by the Agriculture Department, instead of the Interior Department.

    high protection criteria
    1. National Refuge
    2. National Park
    3. National Monument
    4. National Preserve / National Recreation Area
    5. National Forest
    no protection criteria
If you feel a National Forest needs protection or is important for park-like uses, the solution is to write your government and ask it be re-designated a National Park.

basically this judge is declaring that state law supercedes federal rights and rules


The shared use principle has always recognized dual interests. To continue with the hunting example, national areas are usually governed by state hunting laws, since migrating wildlife are very rude anarchists and have little respect for the law - they tend not to stop at federal boundary lines to check-in and just gallop past wildlife biologists and rangers like they just don't give a damn. See:

    Mojave National Preserve
    Hunting is permitted in accordance with California Department of Fish & Game (DFG) regulations. A California Hunting License is required; additional permits and tags may apply. Please be prepared to present your hunting license and/or tags if requested by an NPS park ranger or state game warden.

    http://www.nps.gov/moja/planyourvisit/hunting.htm

Oh, please... if you wish to instruct me on the purpose of the US Forest service, you might begin with 20 years experiece, like I have.


First, congratulations on your 20 years "experiece."

Second, it appears some instruction is warranted based on your OP, regardless of your "experiece."

PLAYER57832 wrote:And in this case, there is no true "multiple use" that is the point. The FS has been accused of that in the past, in regards to timber harvest, sometimes with reason. Even so, that impact is not as permanent as this portends... and the worst abuses of the Timber indusray are now regulatied. In this case, the regulatory bodies are being told "hands off".


OK. The "indusray" being "regulatied" sounds like it may be something good ... or bad? (If I'm being totally honest here, I'm not really sure what you just said.)
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:44 pm

saxitoxin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And in this case, there is no true "multiple use" that is the point. The FS has been accused of that in the past, in regards to timber harvest, sometimes with reason. Even so, that impact is not as permanent as this portends... and the worst abuses of the Timber indusray are now regulatied. In this case, the regulatory bodies are being told "hands off".


OK. The "indusray" being "regulatied" sounds like it may be something good ... or bad? (If I'm being totally honest here, I'm not really sure what you just said.)


OK, fine… I deserved that comment. My computer is acting up.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 5:56 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
saxitoxin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:And in this case, there is no true "multiple use" that is the point. The FS has been accused of that in the past, in regards to timber harvest, sometimes with reason. Even so, that impact is not as permanent as this portends... and the worst abuses of the Timber indusray are now regulatied. In this case, the regulatory bodies are being told "hands off".


OK. The "indusray" being "regulatied" sounds like it may be something good ... or bad? (If I'm being totally honest here, I'm not really sure what you just said.)


OK, fine… I deserved that comment. My computer is acting up.


oh
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:01 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 6:38 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
oVo wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:The Forest Service doesn't really care about the environment.

Unfortunately there is a lot of truth in this statement.

How about the taking of private property (people's homes) using eminent domain
then handing the properties over to developers, as was done in New Jersey during
the Bush administration? The landowners fought this acquisition of their homes all
the way to the Supreme Court, where a close vote gave them the final rodgering
before officially evicting them from their homes.

Eminent Domain was never intended or designed to acquire property for commercial
developers in the US, but this unprecedented action in New Jersey was upheld by the
highest court in the land. The entire situation was created by a developer's greed and
not the actual needs of the local community. Obviously the homeowners couldn't match
the political contributions of the wolf at their door and it helps to have friends in high
places.

Key words there "Bush administration".


So the Executive ordered this to occur?


And are you quite sure this was the Forest Service that did this?


I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby thegreekdog on Fri Mar 22, 2013 10:48 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.


Okay...

(1) There appear to be specific requirements that must be met in order for the private owner to access the minerals. If the private owner can't meet those requirements, tough shit for the private owner.

(2) Did you read the thing you posted? The reference to 1981 was a reference to a court decision, not a presidential decree. Therefore, no presidential influence there. Further, cases tend to take a while to get decided; therefore, it is likely that whatever happened in the 1981 case happened well before Ronald Reagan was president. I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?
Image
User avatar
Sergeant thegreekdog
 
Posts: 6239
Joined: Thu Jul 17, 2008 6:55 am
Location: Philadelphia
Medals: 38
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (2) Triples Achievement (2) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (2)
Manual Troops Achievement (3) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (2) Fog of War Achievement (3) Speed Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Ratings Achievement (4) Tournament Achievement (1)
General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (2) General Contribution (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby saxitoxin on Fri Mar 22, 2013 11:57 pm

thegreekdog wrote:I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?


it's her computer's fault
User avatar
Sergeant 1st Class saxitoxin
 
Posts: 2073
Joined: Fri Jun 05, 2009 1:01 am
Location: the American Riviera
Medals: 14
Standard Achievement (3) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (2) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Speed Achievement (3) Cross-Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (2)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Mar 23, 2013 4:50 am

saxitoxin wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?


it's her computer's fault


Blasted contraptions! With their keys and what not!
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:20 am

BigBallinStalin wrote:
I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate :roll: ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:34 am

Answering your posts, greekdog, but first, here is a new link that DOES go onto more detail. i was hampered a bit before because I had to pay to access the source I wanted online. (a nearby newspaper).

http://ecowatch.com/2012/oil-gas-drillers/

OH, one thing... ignore the picture at the top. its rather stupid of them to include it, because it shows what USED to be common. The current fracking sites are like small villages. of bare earth, buildings and vehicles, lights and noise.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 7:47 am

thegreekdog wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
thegreekdog wrote:I still don't understand what the concern is. The land was owned by private individuals. The government purchased the land, but not the mineral rights, reserving those to the original owners. The original owners could get the minerals so long as they didn't overly disturb the land.

Neither is this a Republican/Democrat thing either considering this has been around since 1981. I mean we've had three going on four Democratic administrations. You people are whackjobs sometimes (e.g. Player and oVo in this thread).

Accessing the minerals in this instance is so intrusive it prohibits surface uses for which the land was purchased.

Furthermore, Deep Hydraulic Fracking only started in the past few years... and uh, care to guess who was president in 1981? Per the "Democratic" bit, it sounds like you are trying to buy into this "you are either Republican or a Democrat" garbage. That is true in voting for the president and higher level offices, but not much beyond that.


Okay...

(1) There appear to be specific requirements that must be met in order for the private owner to access the minerals. If the private owner can't meet those requirements, tough shit for the private owner

Nope, that WAS the case, though not really, because the demands were actually reasonable, not prohibitive, now its "tough sh*t" for the public.

its like they are claiming that the only way to get their minerals is to strip mine and so too bad if the forest is lost in the mean time... and that is not a huge exaggeration.

thegreekdog wrote: (2) Did you read the thing you posted? The reference to 1981 was a reference to a court decision, not a presidential decree. Therefore, no presidential influence there. Further, cases tend to take a while to get decided; therefore, it is likely that whatever happened in the 1981 case happened well before Ronald Reagan was president. I would look for more details but since you can't be bothered to read the thing you posted, why should I put any more effort in?


It’s a tangled mess.

The 1981 ruling had largely to do with people who were actually homesteading on “mining claims”, particularly in northern California, but also elsewhere. The Allegheny Forest has been drilled almost since its inception, in a couple of cases maybe before (records are not clear on that, but oil and gas drilling began in the general area well before 1911). There are multiple high power gas lines running through the forest, other issues. None of them are managed without controversy, but the forest has largely “grown up” despite that. One reason a lot of activity was far less controversial here is because almost this entire forest is second growth (honestly, the small “old growth” patches are more of an eastern joke than anything biologically real). Given that the area looked a lot like a moonscape, people were more happy to see trees and wildlife return than upset that a few patches were interrupted by drill rigs. BUT, and this is very important, most of them were also largely hidden, small in size. Really, there was more impact from the clearing necessary for the high power lines running through the forest than for the drilling rigs, as far as most people were concerned.

There is just no comparison between those impacts and the impacts of the new frackers. Furthermore, each and every attempt local individuals AND now the US forest service are making to regulate these operations for pure safety and environmental concerns are being thwarted.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby BigBallinStalin on Sat Mar 23, 2013 1:28 pm

PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate :roll: ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.


You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.
User avatar
Colonel BigBallinStalin
 
Posts: 4887
Joined: Sun Oct 26, 2008 10:23 pm
Location: crying into the dregs of an empty bottle of own-brand scotch on the toilet having a dump in Dagenham
Medals: 48
Standard Achievement (3) Doubles Achievement (3) Triples Achievement (3) Quadruples Achievement (3) Terminator Achievement (1)
Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4) Trench Warfare Achievement (1)
Teammate Achievement (2) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (3) Beta Map Achievement (1) Ratings Achievement (4)
Tournament Achievement (5) General Achievement (1) Clan Achievement (10)

Re: Taking of public property by private entities

Postby PLAYER57832 on Sat Mar 23, 2013 3:06 pm

BigBallinStalin wrote:
PLAYER57832 wrote:
BigBallinStalin wrote:
I'm just wondering if you'd care to explain (1) how the Bush administration swayed the Supreme Court into ruling in favor of NJ and the developers, and (2) how the Bush administration is involved in the OP, and (3) what exactly was the role of the FS in all of this...

First explain how this has to do with the US Forest Service.

If you want to get into a larger discussion of takings.. fine, but not this thread. And, though i cannot say 100% for sure with out seeing the details (funny how a few details can change the entire debate :roll: ), it does sound like a case of abuse of power. So, you are not arguing against me at any rate, unless the above is a distortion of what really happened.


You're the one bullshitting about "Bush administration" in oVo's post, but I'll let you run away from this one.

No, the point was it was not the Forest Service... and it was not current, either.
Corporal 1st Class PLAYER57832
 
Posts: 2600
Joined: Fri Sep 21, 2007 9:17 am
Location: Pennsylvania
Medals: 30
Standard Achievement (4) Doubles Achievement (1) Triples Achievement (1) Quadruples Achievement (1) Terminator Achievement (2)
Assassin Achievement (1) Manual Troops Achievement (1) Freestyle Achievement (1) Nuclear Spoils Achievement (1) Fog of War Achievement (4)
Speed Achievement (2) Teammate Achievement (1) Random Map Achievement (1) Cross-Map Achievement (4) Ratings Achievement (4)
Training Achievement (1)

Next

Return to Babble-On Five

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users

cron
Login