Dismiss Notice

Welcome To CK5!

Registering is free and easy! Hope to see you on the forums soon.

Score a FREE t-shirt and membership sticker when you sign up for a Premium Membership and choose the recurring plan.

some views from Nevada

Discussion in 'Land Use' started by mudfanatic, Feb 23, 2000.

  1. mudfanatic

    mudfanatic 1/2 ton status

    Feb 18, 2000
    Likes Received:
    Aloha, Oregon
    Off-highway vehicles are valued today in Nevada for recreation and
    transportation, like horses were 75/90 years ago. Many of us rely on
    "back roads, " public roads across our public domain, commonly referred
    to as Public Land, where our young, old, and handicapped sportsman/ women
    can use their off/highway vehicles.
    Almost every county in the state of Nevada have single track, pathways
    and/or other trails that have been HISTORICALLY used by the public.
    Todays access to" PUBLIC LANDS" for recreation is of great importance to
    us and the economy. Recreational access to Public Lands for the
    off-highway user are much more important today than 75/80 years ago as
    recreational income has to take the place of lost revenue to the state
    because of the decline in ranching and mining.
    The Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA)
    states in part as follows: That Congress declares that it is the policy
    of the United States that... goals and objectives be established by law
    and guidelines for public land use planning, and that management be on
    the basis of MULTIPLE USE and SUSTAINED yield unless otherwise specified
    by LAW..... The roadless initiative violates the Multiple USE concept of
    FLPMA and only the CONGRESS can pass a " LAW ".
    Many of us (old timers) in Nevada were of the understanding that when the
    wilderness areas were designated in the 80's, there would be no more for
    several years , but roadless initiative are no different than Rare II was
    before the previous designation.
    The U.S. Forest and B.L.M. were asked, "When the definition of a road
    differs from the F.S. / B.L.M. definition, what definition would you
    follow?" Their reply was they would follow the COUNTY'S definition.
    Title 23 of the U.S. Code (USC)
    The term "public roads" is defined as follows: "means any road/roads or
    street under the Jurisdiction of and Maintained by a public authority and
    open to public travel." " Public Authority" is defined as " Federal,
    State, County, Town/Township, Indian Tribe, Municipal or other local
    government or instrumentality with authority to finance, build, operate
    or maintain toll-free facilities."
    The U.S.Of A. Constitution only allows the federal government the
    ability to create post offices and post roads. Establishment and
    maintenance of public roads was left to the STATES.
    The Supreme Court has ruled : "State officials cannot consent to the
    enlargement of the powers of Congress beyond those enumerated in the
    The Supreme Court even went further and ruled : "If a state ratified or
    gives consent to any authority which is not specifically granted by U.S.

    Constitution it is NULL and VOID".
    Even if we wanted to support the "Roadless Initiative" the Supreme Court
    ruling must be adhered to.
    A great many peoples recreation and livelihood depend on the use of
    Public Land/Roads in Nevada. Many people in America consider public land
    access as an unalienable right protected by the Constitution. Many of
    us believe the roadless initiative/ land closures are in violation of the
    There is a lot of "hostility and mistrust in Nevada aimed at
    the U.S. Forest/B.L.M service because of denied access to public land.
    The animosity is fueled by certain individuals within the goverment/state
    agencies misinterpreting federal law, regulations, court decisions and
    state law . ("Trust is not a given, it must be earned") When trust is
    developed, the " Hostility " will go away. Roadless
    initiative/land closures curcumvent Public Law 104-208 of 1997, section
    108 which states: "no final rule or regulation of any agency of the
    federal government pertaining to the recognition, management or validity
    of a right-of-way pursuant to RS2477(43U.S.C.932) shall take effect
    unless EXPRESSLY AUTHORIZED by an act of Congress subsequent to the date

    of enactment of this Act."
    General council of the G E O reported that Congress intended
    section 108 to be permanent. Declaring an area roadless while a valid
    county right-of-way exists is unlawful.
    In the Repulic known as the United State Of America, all
    legislative powers are vested in the Congress of the United State, which
    consists of the Senate and a House of Representatives. So the Supreme
    Court has told us many times. The administrative branch of
    our government does not have legislative powers. The Supreme Court has
    ruled the Constitution's division of power among the three branches is
    violated where one branch invades the territory of another whether or
    not the encroached-upon branch approves the encroachment.
    The President of the U.S. of A. had to take an oath before he
    entered the office to preserve,protect and DEFEND THE CONSTITUTION.
    Nowhere in the Constitution can we find where the President has the power
    to issue such a directive as this roadless initiative. The Supreme Court
    ruled years ago that an unconstitutional act is not a law; it confers no
    rights; it imposes no duties; affords no protection; it created no
    office; it is in legal contemplation, as inoperative as though it had
    never been passed. This is another reason we should oppose all land and
    road closures.

    More quotes to follow another time.
    PAVED ROADS: A fine example of needless government spending.

Share This Page