Tired of Govt Fees and Confusing regs?

[Fosgate]

This is priceless. 

[Fosgate]

Response

[Habana Mike]

That's pretty awesome. No survey on your property I imagine.....

[planetary]

I don't see what a polite request to survey your creek has to do with government fees and confusing regulations, but perhaps I'm missing something.

The decline of amphibian populations is being actively studied by biologists.

[Fosgate]

Go buy a fishing license and try to go fishing after reading the regulation book. 

[PigFish]

Well... I see it.

I applaud you! Bravo mate... Bravo!!! As a matter of fact, I would like to buy you a cigar! -Ray

[planetary]

Ok, but why take your frustration out on a conservation scientist who is trying to research amphibian populations?

[stogieluver]

Love the response.  Do NOT give them access to your property until forced to do so.  And they WILL force you to give them access.  Then, when they find this frog, they will fence off your creek and prevent any access by anyone, including you, the property owner.  The Federal Government will take your property rights away from you in a heart beat.

The Fish and Wildlife folks here along the Alabama Gulf Coast are ridiculous and almost Nazi like.  After Hurricane Katrina came through, we ended up with over five feet of beach sand behind our beach house.  We hired a front end loader to remove the sand back to the beach in front of our house.  You would think this would be something good for the environment.  We were in the process of hauling that sand back to the beach, building back the dunes that had been washed away by the storm surge.  We've done this after previous hurricanes, and bought and replaced the sea oats which help rebuild the beach dunes and provide habitat for the endangered beach mouse we have here along the shoreline.  The Fed's showed up and threatened to arrest us if we continued the process.  Several weeks later, they dug up the sand, our sand, the sand that was on our property, that came from our property, and hauled it off to a location back in the neighborhood where it did no one any good.  It has taken the ten years since Katrina for the dunes to build back, and they're only about half the size they were before the storm.  What they did made no sense whatsoever.

[zeedubbya]

I really like it.  It blows my mind anymore how many different licenses and permits are required to do a simple thing like hunt.  I've given up taking my son hunting here lately in part because one day we were hunting legally on our land near a state park and were approached by an officer who wanted to see our Licenses and Deer Permits.  I politely informed him that we were hunting our own land and you don't need a permit or license to do so.  To my great disappointment he told me I was wrong, and I asked him to kindly get a copy of the hunting regulations and learn a thing or two. He was going to write me a ticket, and I had to let him know I would like to consult my attorney before speaking to him any further unless I was under arrest.  He told me he would let it go this time and left.  Well so did we-our hint was clearly over for the morning.  My son isn't into it as much anymore, and I partially blame this incident. It still gripes my ass to this day.  We still fish a fair amount, but your role reversal is well received by me and I hope someone with some political power at ODFW sees your letter, but I won't hold my breath.  Well done.  

[PapaDisco]

Excellent!   

Look, I'm all for properly funding parks and forestry.  The frustration on all parties is that the general funds that should be covering these expenses are overburdened with entitlements to the extent that now we have to sneak in all kinds of fees, taxes really, to cover the escalating costs.  

Plus, if they find yellow leg frogs on your property they will of course remember that in their database, and if the frog gets declared endangered guess what's going to happen to restrictions on your frog habitat of a backyard? 

[El Presidente]

Give them nothing, take them nowhere. 

They find one endangered frog and you will be applying to them for a permit to live in your own home. 

[SCgarman]

3 hours ago, El Presidente said:

Give them nothing, take them nowhere. 

They find one endangered frog and you will be applying to them for a permit to live in your own home. 

Absolutely. The tyrannical bureaucrats in the US rival anywhere else in the civilized world. Shameful.

[TomF]

Why do so many Americans hate America so much? This was a simple and polite request. They are trying to do something good. There was no threat to you or your family in any way. In my opinion your sarcastically nasty response was uncalled for and way out of line.

[wabashcr]

32 minutes ago, TomF said:

Why do so many Americans hate America so much? This was a simple and polite request. They are trying to do something good. There was no threat to you or your family in any way. In my opinion your sarcastically nasty response was uncalled for and way out of line.

It's a joke, and I don't believe OP is claiming to be the one who actually wrote the letter.

Here's some more context.

[TomF]

11 minutes ago, wabashcr said:

It's a joke, and I don't believe OP is claiming to be the one who actually wrote the letter.

Here's some more context.

OK, mebbe so...but if it's supposed to be a joke it is not funny. This post is a clear violation of the FOH 2nd commandment. Regardless of whether it was a joke I was personally appalled that this was posted in the first place and by the responses from some members of this forum. Let's just follow the rules and stay out of politics, religion, and guns.  Can we lock this thread now Mods...???

 

[Fosgate]

For those that question why give a biologist a hard time, they are just trying to do good etc. In my state those biologists are the same wardens that come out and check your license and enforce the law. They actually have more authority than many of the police here. While there are many good ones, like any profession there are many bad ones as well. There were a couple here not long ago that had people across the state wound up. People wanted him fired and started a petition. Both wound up getting stuffed into desk positions. And like someone else said. You let them on you property looking for something potentially rare or endangered and it may not be your property much longer under the endangered species act.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[Fugu]

Even if it's meant to be a joke, and whoever wrote it, like Planetary and TomF, I can't quite follow it. The request is not related to any stupid governmental overregulation. You guys are confusing and mixing up things, needs a bit more differentiated view.

We have one fundamental law in my country, saying "private property entails obligations, its use shall also serve the public good". That's a basic priciple here, being widely accepted, and for good reason! There are rights that go over your personal right on your property.

As Mericans or Stralians you guys obviously come from another standpoint, mainly as land has long not been a scarce good, fair enough. But perhaps you may think it over for a second and try and re-adopt more the perspective of the Natives of your nations. While utilizing nature, they always respected and protected the natural heritage and their environment of which they considered themselves being part of, and still do. A heritage to this day, in which we are all living in! We're all only guests on this beautiful planet.

Very unfortunately, that's not the common sense anymore today, so there is - quite regrettably - need for a certain control. If man would act more responsible there were no need for it. Look at overfishing, as we are at it (as a puffer I am personally concerned). Fisheries all over the world tend to overfish stocks (often at the cost of the local extensive fisheries) and then whine that there is nothing to catch anymore. Research, surveying and quotas are needed to come to half-decent 'sustainable' fisheries at dwindling stocks (wouldn't oil be so cheap, it wouldn't work as it does anyway...). And of course fishermen always oppose, although it is to their own benefit in the long run if stocks get a chance to recover. 80% of the world fisheries are overfished. Farmers the same, highly subsidized but immediately whining when they are asked for some minute action to be taken for environmental improvements, which could cost them some ground under plough or some crop yield - which would be counterbalanced anyway. Don't let me get any deeper into this. I am aware, what I am saying is not popular here, still it is fact.

Getting back to the point. Our land may be our possession - yet it never is our property! (from an ethical standpoint, that is, not from a legal one). It is lent to us while we are on this planet, with the obligation to do good with it for the benefit of all. There is no "my land", that's just simple-minded. Animals don't know borders of man's claims. Plants and animals on that land had lived there before us and should have a right to be there with and after us. If that's being observed, fine! And if it is being surveyed whether that's being observed, even better!

Every land owner should go out of its way to help on where he or she can.

Goo
 

[wabashcr]

I thought it was just a playful jab at all the bureaucracy and red tape often encountered with environmental and wildlife agencies.  They make you jump through all kinds of hoops when you need their permission to do something, and now the shoe is on the other foot.  Time to give them a taste of their own medicine.  The guy who wrote the response said he personally knows the guy who sent the original request.  From the article I linked above:

Quote

Larry Andersen told TheBlaze that the letter, which clearly takes aim at ODFW's rules and regulations, was "all meant to be fun," adding that he knows Steve Niemela, the man who sent him the original request, and "he's a good guy, a really good guy."

Also, the ODFW seemed to get that it was a joke.  I don't think there's any reason this has to be political, but just about anything turns political anymore.

[PapaDisco]

Yes, I'm sure everyone on both sides had a good laugh at that letter.  If we would properly fund our parks and forestry services from general tax revenues we could do away with "user fees" ad infinitum.  It's a crazy way to run a railroad.

As an aside, 10 years ago I was restoring the old homestead in San Francisco.  Turned out to be one of the oldest residences in the City, and so the Historic District guys were riding us pretty hard.  There really was no need on their part, as I really love putting old things back in their original, pristine condition (and the finished renovation has been used as an example of the "right way" many times since by the preservation guys).

Anyway, at one point in the process there was a required site inspection by the Historic Preservation group in Planning and Zoning.  No problem, come on over.  They asked if I minded if they brought some of their colleagues for their own edification, owing to the nature of this particular old house.  I said 'Sure, bring anyone you like!'  They brought the whole office.  30 days later I got a bill from the Planning and Zoning office, charging me $90/hour for each and every member of the group that toured that day!   

[Orion21]

In the US we have a thing called conservation easements and eminent domain.  In this case it seems it's a State Fish and Wildlife Agent wanting to do the study.  Their power is much more limited vs the US Fish and Wildlife Service.  The risk to the landowner from a State Fish and Wildlife Agent is almost nothing.  Where you would want to be cautious is if it was a US Agent.  The US Fish and Wildlife Service does have the power to use eminent domain to acquire land by force.  It doesn't seem to be very common, but they do have the power.

 

[GasGuy82]

Transcript from a 6 minute NPR piece dated June 8th. You can also find the audio at http://www.npr.org/2016/06/08/481206868/landowners-and-federal-officials-dispute-red-rivers-boundaries

 

The federal government is changing the border between Texas and Oklahoma. What's going on? That's what landowners along the Red River want to know.

RENEE MONTAGNE, HOST:

For centuries, the Red River has been a line of demarcation. It once marked the boundary between Spain and the United States, later Texas and the U.S. and finally, Oklahoma and Texas. Now, as NPR's Wade Goodwyn reports, that could all change and affect tens of thousands of acres of private land in the process.

WADE GOODWYN, BYLINE: Pat Canan is a petroleum engineer, a Texas game warden and a north Texas rancher with about 2,000 acres that abut the Red River. For more than 50 years, his family gazed across the river at their neighbors in Oklahoma.

One day, while investigating his property on his all-terrain vehicle, Canan saw something stuck in the ground, a fence post in the middle of one of his pastures. He stopped and found a little round bronze marker with official looking words stamped in the middle. What was written there was dumbfounding.

PAT CANAN: If you look on it, it says there's a line. And on the south side of the line, it says Texas. And on the north side, it says Oklahoma. Bureau of Land Management.

GOODWYN: We had Oklahoma. I'm standing right here in it.

CANAN: That's Oklahoma. And I'm in Texas. And we're a foot apart, a mile from the river.

(LAUGHTER)

GOODWYN: This is going to come as quite a surprise to generations of elementary school geography students. Canan stands amidst massive hundred-year-old oak and cottonwood trees. He can't even smell the Red River from here.

CANAN: So I had to get on the Internet - figure out what all those marks meant on that survey. It was unbelievable that that was actually the boundary between Texas and Oklahoma.

GOODWYN: Canan had no idea the markers were here. But once found, he remembered how they'd come to be. In 2008, surveyors from the Bureau of Land Management rang the intercom at his cattle gate.

CANAN: The BLM showed up and said, we want to survey this river bottom to define Indian lands. So I let them through the gate.

GOODWYN: That was a decision he's come to regret. Historically, the Red River has always been an important border dividing the U.S. from Spain, then Mexico, and eventually Texas from Oklahoma. Just who owned and controlled the river bottom has always been a little more complicated.

In 1923, the U.S. Supreme Court decided the northern half of the Red River bottom was Oklahoma's and the southern half the federal government's. Texas got none of it. The problem for Pat Canan and the other Texas property owners is that after its survey, the BLM has extended what it considers part of its riverbed more than a mile onto dry land into Texas.

Robert Henneke is a lawyer with the Texas Public Policy Foundation and represents Pat Canan, several other affected landowners and the Texas counties involved who are suing the Department of the Interior.

ROBERT HENNEKE: What appears to be happening now is that for the first time in history, the federal government and the Bureau of Land Management are saying that their boundary is not where the river exists today, but that they want to claim their boundary as going back to where the river flowed nearly a hundred years ago.

GOODWYN: The BLM says it's using the Supreme Court's original surveys from the 1920s to locate its current markers. But in places, the markers appear to make little sense. On Pat Canan's property, for example, he says it's been hundreds of years, if not millennia, since the Red River flowed anywhere near the survey markers.

Nevertheless, the BLM claims 1,400 of Canan's 2,000 acres is in the riverbed - therefore, federal property. One of Canan's neighbors has it even worse. The BLM considers their house to be inside its riverbed. The $64 question is - what's going on here? Why is this happening? The Bureau declined NPR's interview request.

But Jesse Juen is the recently retired BLM director who was in charge of the Texas-Oklahoma region. Juen helped direct the survey effort. And he says it's simply part of the ongoing planning process about how to adjudicate the public's land.

JESSE JUEN: Do we want to retain those public lands or dispose of those public lands? And you identify all of that in the planning process.

GOODWYN: The BLM claims what it's actually trying to do is belatedly protect the property rights of the Kiowa, Comanche and Apache. In 1868, these tribes were compensated with small parcels of land along the Oklahoma bank of the Red River.

Because of the BLM's latest survey, the tribes could claim thousands of acres of heretofore private Texas property because it wouldn't be in Texas anymore. Juen explains the agency's motivation is not to wrest away private land, per se, but to safeguard the tribes' and the nation's public interest.

JUEN: I really felt that the agency needed to deal with this and get this into the public's eye so that we could get this resolved once and for all. There would be nothing worse than some issue to come up - and go to court. And then the court turn around and look at agency and say, wait a minute, you knew about this all this time, and you never did anything about it?

GOODWYN: Back on Pat Canan's land, we climb aboard our ATVs and head toward the Red River. Along the way, we stop at another BLM marker that precisely denotes the medial line of the river, the river's exact middle. But don't worry, we're not drowning. We still have another half-mile to ride before we actually get to the water.

We go as far as the machines can take us. Then we walk. Finally, we're there. It's been a very wet spring, and the river is bursting - a color of deep ocher, chock-full of Oklahoma red clay. We stand on the lip, resting, taking it all in.

CANAN: This is where Texas begins - right here at this bank, not where the BLM has it a mile away.

GOODWYN: Standing here, it's tempting to laugh. Of course the riverbank is here. And the middle of the river is out there in the fast flowing water. But any amusement would just be salt in Pat Canan's wounds.

In its 1923 ruling, the Supreme Court wrote, the boundary of Texas is on and along the southern bank at the mean level of the water. The ruling continued optimistically. It is settled beyond the possibility of dispute that when the bed and water channel are changed by the natural and gradual processes of erosion, the boundaries follow the course of the stream.

But it turns out a dispute is not only not beyond possible. It's now in federal court in Wichita Falls. Wade Goodwyn, NPR News, Dallas.

Copyright © 2016 NPR. All rights reserved. Visit our website terms of use and permissions pages at www.npr.org for further information.

[Fugu]

Tapped in the trap. Ok, after seeing the background, this story gets a much different tone of course.
Sometimes context helps.

Still, my position stands (and Fosgate appears having taken it serious, too)

[PigFish]

23 hours ago, Fugu said:

As Mericans or Stralians you guys obviously come from another standpoint, mainly as land has long not been a scarce good, fair enough. But perhaps you may think it over for a second and try and re-adopt more the perspective of the Natives of your nations. While utilizing nature, they always respected and protected the natural heritage and their environment of which they considered themselves being part of, and still do. A heritage to this day, in which we are all living in! We're all only guests on this beautiful planet.

 

 

Gooey, we're mates okay... I have never really like to hammer people who think differently than me. Diversity makes the world an interesting place.

I believe that you are a lot younger than I am. I like young people, their bright energy and whit is catchy, especially for us that are a bit more seasoned... I enjoy your banter, your approach and tip my hat to you when correct.

Without trying to sound patronizing, I am telling you this because I like you. I think you are a bright guy! Expand out of the PC line of thinking... You don't have to swallow it all, a lot of it is fallacy! I am not asking you to believe me, you're sharp, open up and look at some other sources for information.

Have you ever heard of pound and jump hunting? Look it up! Wild fires would be set (sometimes). Hundreds of animals (maybe thousands) were killed when few were taken... There was nothing nice or 'earth friendly' about it! It was cruel and gruesome.

I am not picking on natives. If I were starving in a loincloth I would kill prey to feed my family and use what was necessary to survive. I am not judging them. Primitive people do what they do to survive. On the other side of this is the myth that they were partners of the earth... This is crap. The fact remains that their adaptivity, invention and individual achievements, customs, warlike behavior, primitive tribal structure and other factors simply made their legacy of the many continents that they once lived, one of a failed design. They could have done much more damage than they did certainly, if they could grow to large enough numbers. When you consider a concept of earthly evolution, they should have dominated their continents. Yet they failed to. Coincidental happenings (populations too small to do great damage), does not make them saints, nor does this politically correct history lessen that they now appear to teach.

Someday I hope, you are going to put your efforts into either intellectual property or real property, both I hope. Those things that you own will represent your labors, physical and intellectual. When you legally obtain something it is yours until such time you dispose of it. Your ownership of property represents your life! Your life is limited, and with it comes only so many hours you can earn, enjoy, live, love and smoke cigars. You own that time. No collective does. No village does. No humanity does!!! Not unless you freely give it, which you certainly can. The earth is yours, not the other way around. The earth owed primitive people. It subjugated them and limited them. It did not do this to them with intent or malice. It subjugated a people who would not take a position of dominance in it. That is why they failed! This lesson apparently did not make Anthropology the New Generation! Is that who you want to be? Is that worth emulating? Is that what you are being taught, to emulate failure???

Private property is one of the essential building blocks to freedom and a free man. Private property is the essence of success and that is a lesson I think you should learn. I would venture to say, respect for a free man is far more important that the collective, the tribe and even society. Free men can respect and use the earth both. A society of free people, respecting each others rights and property leads to wide spread wealth creation, a robust average income and lifestyle and the real progress that you are looking for. Look at where a subjugated people reside in the legacy of human endeavor. Then look at the accomplishments of free people. Then ask yourself, are you a winner or a loser?

If you want to do humanity a favor, study the reasons, the genesis, the causes of both the failed state and the successful one. With that, a smart guy will find the right path.

I hope none of this struck you as offensive. It was never my intent.

Your friend, Ray

[leftimatic]

On 6/14/2016 at 9:34 AM, Fugu said:

Even if it's meant to be a joke, and whoever wrote it, like Planetary and TomF, I can't quite follow it. The request is not related to any stupid governmental overregulation. You guys are confusing and mixing up things, needs a bit more differentiated view.

We have one fundamental law in my country, saying "private property entails obligations, its use shall also serve the public good". That's a basic priciple here, being widely accepted, and for good reason! There are rights that go over your personal right on your property.

As Mericans or Stralians you guys obviously come from another standpoint, mainly as land has long not been a scarce good, fair enough. But perhaps you may think it over for a second and try and re-adopt more the perspective of the Natives of your nations. While utilizing nature, they always respected and protected the natural heritage and their environment of which they considered themselves being part of, and still do. A heritage to this day, in which we are all living in! We're all only guests on this beautiful planet.

Very unfortunately, that's not the common sense anymore today, so there is - quite regrettably - need for a certain control. If man would act more responsible there were no need for it. Look at overfishing, as we are at it (as a puffer I am personally concerned). Fisheries all over the world tend to overfish stocks (often at the cost of the local extensive fisheries) and then whine that there is nothing to catch anymore. Research, surveying and quotas are needed to come to half-decent 'sustainable' fisheries at dwindling stocks (wouldn't oil be so cheap, it wouldn't work as it does anyway...). And of course fishermen always oppose, although it is to their own benefit in the long run if stocks get a chance to recover. 80% of the world fisheries are overfished. Farmers the same, highly subsidized but immediately whining when they are asked for some minute action to be taken for environmental improvements, which could cost them some ground under plough or some crop yield - which would be counterbalanced anyway. Don't let me get any deeper into this. I am aware, what I am saying is not popular here, still it is fact.

Getting back to the point. Our land may be our possession - yet it never is our property! (from an ethical standpoint, that is, not from a legal one). It is lent to us while we are on this planet, with the obligation to do good with it for the benefit of all. There is no "my land", that's just simple-minded. Animals don't know borders of man's claims. Plants and animals on that land had lived there before us and should have a right to be there with and after us. If that's being observed, fine! And if it is being surveyed whether that's being observed, even better!

Every land owner should go out of its way to help on where he or she can.

Goo
 

Your rant leads me to believe you rent an apartment. I have kids and a homestead and other more important things to look after so I will just touch on a couple points and make it brief.

       I get so tired of wannabe earth cookies bitching about over fishing and over gas guzzling and over farming and over tree cutting. Simple fact is if you want it all to stop then stop consuming. Farmers grow and miners mine and fishers fish and loggers log so the lazy can eat, drive to the mall and stay warm at night. You wanna save the world it's mighty simple. Plant your own damn potatoes, catch your own fish,and buy a bike and go hunting. Stay off the bus and trains. Toss your cel phone in the crapper and stay off the internet. Stop buying anything from overseas and in excessive plastic packaging. Stop consuming the planet with your useless needs! Lay off the cigars and imported foods. Run around naked eating nuts and berries from the trees. Sounds pretty easy eh.

     As for land ownership and responsibilities. I have spent the last four years clearing land and putting in gardens, grapes, berry patches and orchards. All of it by back and hand with but a mere 8 hours worth of excavator rental to take out the stumps from garden and chicken coop area. We are 75% self sufficient. I estimate in about 3 more years time we will be all but living on our own food. I currently pasture raise enough pork and poultry to supply 10-12 families with enough to get them through a whole year without the need to get any from a supermarket . I hoping in the next few years to also be able to bring in less fortunate families from my neighborhood and try and teach them a thing or two about self sufficient living and small space gardening. Give them some place to set up shop for the season and get rolling on a way to feed themselves in exchange for help on the farm. Now this isn't me climbing onto moral high ground hoping for a pat on the back. This is me explaining that after all the blood, sweat  and backache I have put into my land to get where I am and always intend to be and if someone tries to take it away they had best bring back up and plenty of firepower. I wont go down easy.  And this is from a Canuck not a 'merican nor 'stralian. Just one of them peaceful friends from up north.

    But, really just  think what you want. At the end of the day I could give a rats ass anyway. Now I must attend to an aphid issue on my Italian plumb tree. Oh if only it was easier to import ladybugs.

[Smallclub]

53 minutes ago, leftimatic said:

As for land ownership and responsibilities. I have spent the last four years clearing land and putting in gardens, grapes, berry patches and orchards. All of it by back and hand with but a mere 8 hours worth of excavator rental to take out the stumps from garden and chicken coop area. We are 75% self sufficient.

And you think it gives you the right to insul those who are concerned by the treatment inflicted to our planet by industrial fishing, industrial farming, chemical industry, etc etc.?

Being self sufficient exempts you to understand environmental legislation?