August 19, 2019

Demanding Regulation and Enforcement

LoggingIt’s easy isn’t it? This American society has become so manipulated and brainwashed that we, without any thought, demand that “there ought to be a law,” also known as regulation and enforcement. It shouldn’t be so easy and isn’t when the demands for regulation and enforcement hit directly home. Odd how selfish people are when it comes to playing with other peoples’ liberties, property and rights while attempting to protect their own. Because we’ve been bred and molded into non thinkers, we fail miserably in finding understanding as to the consequences of demanding regulation and enforcement. We somehow believe demanding of others’ livelihoods is good for ourselves. Have we that right?

Here’s an example. In a recent editorial in a Maine newspaper Online, a writer says that logging is “damaging Maine’s natural resources.” At issue seemed to be the writer’s concern over the state’s deer herd and the threats from loss of wintering habitat for deer because of logging. The writer states: “If the State of Maine is serious enough and has the guts to regulate and enforce effective laws to preserve our natural resources, not ask for volunteers, we can do that.”

Yes, we can do that but what is the right thing to do? The writer suggests that all it takes is “guts” to tell a landowner they can’t have what is rightfully theirs. But people somehow don’t believe it is rightfully theirs. They think they have a right to tell you how to live and how to make your living.

If you were a rancher or farmer, is all it would take would be “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you out of ownership of a barn because perhaps the smell of manure bothered some people? After all, it just takes guts. If you owned a home with a back yard swimming pool, would it be acceptable to “regulate and enforce,” with “guts” no less, for you to be prohibited from having a pool because someone thought it dangerous? What if you had a large tree in your yard that you were afraid would fall and damage your home. All it would take is guts to “regulate and enforce” you into not being able to cut that tree because it might have “historic” value….or something. And so, you have a title to 50 acres of land where your home is built. The government determines that 40 acres of that land is habitat for a rare plant and so, you are prohibited to use or sell that land in order to protect that plant. All it takes is “guts” to “regulate and enforce” you from what is rightfully yours.

Doesn’t this actually define an illegal “takings?” How do we, as a people, a government, have the right to take property from somebody without just compensation? With “guts” we can simply “regulate and enforce” landowners to stop harvesting timber that MIGHT be detrimental to the proliferation of a large enough deer herd so that residents can hunt them.

Isn’t to have the “guts” to “regulate and enforce” nothing more than fascism? If not fascism, certainly totalitarianism. We now live in a totalitarian/socialist state. If we can’t get away with “regulate and enforce” or illegal takings, then, if Maine is so determined that the reduced deer herd, the effect of which is part of a struggling economy, is so important, then landowners should be justly compensated for a “taking.” As such, all residents will endure an increase in taxes to pay for the takings…each according to his ability, each according to his need…and we must also consider the ramifications of price increases due to shortages of resources – supply and demand.

In reality, the landowner isn’t the landowner at all. He holds a piece of paper that allows him to pay taxes on it and to do with that land ONLY what government dictates him to be able to do. We continue to convince ourselves that we own land and can do with it what we want. The short of it is, it doesn’t take “guts” at all. It only takes government to demand and take. Citizens don’t understand that when they demand “there ought to be a law,” they are doing the bidding for the government against the people.

While citizens are making their demands to “regulate and enforce” their own ignorance and selfish greed prohibits them from a deeper understanding of the consequences of such demands. It will be only a matter of time before that demand to “regulate and enforce” comes around and bites them squarely on the backside.

I began this article stating how easy it was to demand laws. Those laws on demand are for somebody else not you, is our attitude. That is our mindset and that is why it is easy. Instead of thinking of what those consequences will be WHEN your turn comes around to be regulated and enforced upon, it’s easier to demand if of other people. And, more than likely, your demands are based upon false information you have been spoon fed that causes you to think “there ought to be a law.”

There ought to be a law that prohibits people from demanding “regulate and enforce.” Ha Ha

Share

RMEF Opposes Sale or Transfer of Federal Public Lands

Press Release from the Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation:

MISSOULA, Mont.-The Rocky Mountain Elk Foundation is concerned about the continuing rhetoric and political posturing surrounding the wholesale disposal, sale or transfer of federal land holdings, and stands in opposition to such potential action.

“Federal public lands are vitally important habitat for elk and many other species of wildlife. They are also where we hunt, camp, hike, and in some cases, make our living,” stated David Allen, RMEF president and CEO, in a recent letter to all members of Congress across the West. “The notion of transferring ownership of lands currently overseen by the U.S. Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management or any other federal land manager to states, or worse yet to private interests, is not a solution to federal land management issues and we are opposed to this idea.”

RMEF maintains that transferring public lands to states to manage will not work for two primary reasons. The first reason is states are not equipped or prepared to manage these additional lands. The costs are enormous. Most states in the nation are in the red financially and do not have the funds to fight wildfire, treat noxious weeds and improve access. That shortfall will lead to the potential sale of public lands. The second major reason is transferring ownership of public lands does not address the real issues such as the lack of management or the constant barriers put forth by litigious groups.

“Calls for transfers of federal land are rooted in disappointment and disgust with the lack of balanced use and management of these lands today. Over the past decade, there has been a shift in the multiple use approach for the benefit of the most people and wildlife to a preservationist agenda advocated by small radical groups. Actively managed lands benefit people and wildlife, and in a specific case, reduce the impacts of wildfire, a national crisis at this time,” stated Allen.

RMEF calls on all members of Congress to stand up for the ongoing federal ownership of land and to further improve the situation by enacting legislation that creates specific strategic goals for the Departments of Agriculture and Interior to implement sound, active federal management.

“Federal public lands have always afforded the opportunity for Americans to hunt, hike, fish and enjoy the outdoors,” added Allen. “The RMEF wants it to remain that way.”

Share