Teardrops n Tiny Travel Trailers

Howdy All;

Just ran across the following in a weekly news letter I get;

https://www.rvtravel.com/congress-fails ... rvt-1128b/

and

https://www.rvtravel.com/roaders-appeal ... rvt-1129b/

Just thought ya'll might like to know.

hank

Filthy rotten scoundrels.
"If it pleases the crown, may I be permitted to rest briefly aside the King's highway...?"



I follow a youtube channel called Gonagain. He posted this with similar concerns recently.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Cs7X92G1zyQ

Filthy rotten scoundrels.

I read the proposed rule. There's nothing in it that addresses camping. The rule puts conservation on the same footing as grazing, mining, oil extraction etc.

Somebody is gaslighting this thing. Big oi? Mining companies?

Tony

I suspect Mr. Hankaye is the one doing the gaslighting. After all.....new user with exactly one post. Spam, or a troll?

Just me having suspicions.....Roger

After all.....new user with exactly one post.

Hank's been here a while. +2500 posts.

Tony

I took the time and went through several articles, both pro & con on this. My take is this action is to remove BLM's power to do as it pleases and create over-sight. I'm I missing something here?

No article specially states reduction in any uses, yet all show how BLM has the ability (under the current rule) to remove any portion of use for another, without over-sight.

Just my take on what I have read.

My take is this action is to remove BLM's power...

Here's the rule:

https://www.blm.gov/sites/default/files/docs/2023-03/Public%20Lands%20Proposed%20Rule%20-%20Conservation%20and%20Landscape%20Health%20-Final%20Clean%20Version%203-29-23.pdf

"The Bureau of Land Management (BLM) proposes new regulations that,
pursuant to the Federal Land Policy and Management Act of 1976 (FLPMA), as
amended, and other relevant authorities, would advance the BLM’s mission to manage
the public lands for multiple use and sustained yield by prioritizing the health and
resilience of ecosystems across those lands."

It's about multiple use. The way I read it, it puts recreation at the same level as grazing and mining. And that's a good thing, in my mind.

Tony

I’m now wondering if the chevron-deference ruling by SCOTUS changes anything. I can’t help but think it would. Are there any legal scholars that could weigh in?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Are there any legal scholars that could weigh in?

This rule has nothing to do with what the Supremes did recently. And, by the way, it's a good rule. Nothing in the rule impinges on camping.

Tony

Tony, don't know if you followed the areas closures around Moab. Excuse was too many folks and no enough officers to patrol. Scuttle is the land was going to be leased out commercially. I haven't heard much about it in several months so I don't know what has actually happened out there.

This is what the ruling allows and why I was for the change to have an over-sight on BLM's management.

Scuttle is the land was going to be leased out commercially.

I think that's mystic malarkey. The BLM isn't in the business of leasing. Sure, maybe a county dump or some such necessary stuff. The road closures were about resource damage.

https://www.sltrib.com/news/environment/2024/03/20/roads-closed-by-feds-near-moab/

We spend a month in SE Utah. We go through Moab as fast as we can. The place is a zoo with the Jeep crowd. Hundreds and hundreds of off-road vehicles.

This new rule puts recreation on the same footing as mining and grazing, and that's a great thing for us boondock campers.

Tony