Boundary Waters, Message Board, Forum, BWCA, BWCAW, Quetico Park


BWCA Messageboard

BWCA and Quetico Park Books and Magazines

Find Outfitters for the Boundary Waters Quetico

Boundary Waters (BWCA) photo gallery and individual photo journals

Boundary Waters Message Board and Forums.

username

password

Remember Me

Echo Trail Outfitters and Resort Cabins
Site Search
	Contact Us
	Route Guide

Chat Rooms (0 Chatting) | Search | Login/Join

* For the benefit of the community, commercial posting is not allowed.

View BWCA Photo and Trip Report Contest Page

2012 BWCA Photo Contest Results

Boundary Waters Quetico Forum

Listening Point - General Discussion

minus 86000+ acres of superior nat'l forest(BWCA) Bill H.R. 5544

Author:

Date/Time: 06/19/2013 03:12AM

Subject: minus 86000+ acres of superior nat'l forest(BWCA) Bill H.R. 5544

Enter Lake Name*:

* Help stop spam. Please enter the lake name you see over the flying moose.

Previous Messages:
Author	Message Text
PINETREE	06/14/2012 01:36PM It has nothing to do with expansion,on anyone's part. Yes the state has done a good job up to now, yes many of my friends within the state should be proud of themselves for good job in the past(yes I worked with many of them on School Trust land on a wide variety of projects, Yes I believe the Feds have done a good job but at all levels of Government the winds are blowing,and that can be scary. The unknown is sometimes worst than usually what happens. Which land to be exchanged is one of the big concerns. The land exchange itself,well lets just say,either way it is not the end of the world,as long as it stays public. Which land to be exchanged is one of the big concerns. Enough said I am going panfishing fishing and with the ever improving lake trout population in Burtnside you should go fishing too. Have a good day.
burntsider	06/14/2012 11:33AM quote PINETREE: "I am fully aware of the entire situation. I am not going to get in a argument either. We probably agree more than you think. The point was on Existing public land that now butts up to the BWCA it would be much easier for the USFS to manage those lands as it would be for the State of Minnesota to manage there holdings that are intact in one piece that would be separate and farther away and they could manage as they want. We are talking zero private acres. If done right everybody will be happy. The past two Governor agreed to the compromise and all parties worked very hard to agree on the land swap and money and which land to swap. Just saying they don't have to do this hap hazardly just because it is election time. " 1. I don't follow your point about the USFS being better able to manage land outside of the BWCA. There is state land now abutting the BWCA -- between my land and the nearest point of the BWCA e.g. The state has no trouble managing it. Nor would they with the additional land they will acquire in the swap. I feel more comfortable with the state managing it than the feds since I'm one of a couple of million voters in Minnesota but only one of a hundred million in the US. It would be better yet if the county or township controlled the land. 2. If, as you suspect, the decision to swap the land rather than allow the feds to buy Minnesota's land in the BWCA is a political one, it is supported by both parties (which rarely agree on anything) and must have been done because they believe voters prefer this solution. 3. I don't know how much we agree on -- maybe you're right and we agree on many things. One thing I am wary of, however, is attempts to expand the BWCA's defined and de facto geography and its influence outside of that defined area. This is most troubling to me as the appetite for territory and influence seems insatiable among some wilderness fanatics. Respectfully.
PINETREE	06/14/2012 09:07AM I am fully aware of the entire situation. I am not going to get in a argument either. We probably agree more than you think. The point was on Existing public land that now butts up to the BWCA it would be much easier for the USFS to manage those lands as it would be for the State of Minnesota to manage there holdings that are intact in one piece that would be separate and farther away and they could manage as they want. We are talking zero private acres. If done right everybody will be happy. The past two Governor agreed to the compromise and all parties worked very hard to agree on the land swap and money and which land to swap. Just saying they don't have to do this hap hazardly just because it is election time.
burntsider	06/13/2012 09:11PM quote PINETREE: "A old saying is what makes up the characteristics of a lake is its surroundings. It is so true for the BWCA also. The swap should go forward as I hope as a 50-50 deal. What scares me is the unknown,what land is actually changed. There should be a buffer rule of no Federal land exchange within so many miles of the BWCA. " How many miles? My home is less than a half-mile from the nearest point of the BWCA. Should my property be condemned by the federal government and my family ousted so that a buffer zone can be created around the BWCA (a de facto expansion of the BWCA)? No, the BWCA HAS as border and lovers of that over-1,000,000 acre chunk of NE Minnesota (which was converted by the feds into a limited-use preserve) need to learn to understand that and quit trying to publicly expand its territory and influence beyond those borders. If wilderness advocates want to expand the unused portions of MN, they should buy land and manage it as they choose (compliant with the ever-increasing restrictions everywhere in America.)
burntsider	06/13/2012 02:24PM Every time this comes up, the same misunderstandings are aired. May I attempt to clarify. 1. Minnesota owns land in NE Minnesota that became trapped within the BWCA when that federal preserve was created. This land was intended to be used by Minnesota to raise money for schools. 2. Minnesota has agreed to exchange this land (since it is useless to Minnesota) within the BWCA for federal land of equal value OUTSIDE the BWCA. There will be NO NET LOSS OF FEDERAL LAND WITHIN THE BWCA. Since the exchange is to be made ad valorem, it is possible that either Minnesota or the feds will lose some acreage. That will depend of what land is exchanged outside the BWCA and what value is assigned to all the lands being exchanged. 3. The scheme for the feds to purchase Minnesota's land in the BWCA, favored by some, is opposed by others because a) the feds are broke and getting broker by the minute so any money they'd spend to buy this land would be borrowed, and b) there already is too much federal land in Minnesota generally and especially in NE Minnesota. 4. The State of Minnesota is perfectly capable of administering the land they will acquire in this swap in a prudent and responsible way assuring users will abide by applicable environmental laws among other restrictions. 5. Having Minnesota administer this land with emphasis on earning money to fund schools is good for Minnesota and its taxpayers who have long absorbed a disproportionate share of the cost of the BWCA through higher taxes on the shrunken private land remaining after the creation of this limited-use preserve. Summarizing, the BWCA will not be affected by this land swap. There is nothing to fear.
burntsider	06/13/2012 02:24PM
PINETREE	06/12/2012 08:38AM A old saying is what makes up the characteristics of a lake is its surroundings. It is so true for the BWCA also. The swap should go forward as I hope as a 50-50 deal. What scares me is the unknown,what land is actually changed. There should be a buffer rule of no Federal land exchange within so many miles of the BWCA.
Harv	06/12/2012 08:03AM Wish I had the money to purchase the land inside the BWCA....
Grandma L	06/11/2012 03:36PM quote CrookedPaddler1: "I agree with what you are saying. I just get frustrated when the headline on the thread implies that we are risking the lose of over 86,000 acres of the BWCA. " I agree especially when the post is by a "guest".
CrookedPaddler1	06/11/2012 01:08PM I agree with what you are saying. I just get frustrated when the headline on the thread implies that we are risking the lose of over 86,000 acres of the BWCA.
PINETREE	06/11/2012 11:30AM quote CrookedPaddler1: "I would just like to point out to everyone that the Superior National Forest is over 2 million acres of forested land. I would challenge all of you to look at the reason that our National Forest System was created! It wasn't for recreation at all -- it wasn't until the Multiple Use Act of 1960 that recreation was even considered as part of the USFS. The BWCA is a small portion (albeit an important part) of the Superior National Forest. A portion of the Forest that is managed 100% for recreation and in my opinion that may be a violation of the multiple use act (but I am not complaining!). The mission of the "USFS" is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." I would agree that recreation is important to "Present and future generations", but so is the logging and mining. I am not saying we should open the "BWCA" up to logging and mining, but what I am saying is that both of those are certainly within the scope of why the Forest Service was created. We need to put trust in the USFS, the EPA and other organizations that the logging and mining operations will take steps in the harvest process to protect our resources. " I think we are saying much the same with a little different wording and maybe a little different idea? I am just saying I would rather do a 50% land swap and 50% buyout. I also think the USFS has done a excellent job of sustainable logging outside the BWCA. Many of Minnesota counties and the State itself at times in recent years has over logged certain areas and are under short term pressure to raise money at the expense of what is best long term. Also probably more important is where is this land to be exchanged,there is a bill in Congress(House of Representative) to make it that there is no review or options by the public on which lands. It is just so sad all parties have worked hard to get a agreement on the 50-50 deal and all sides were satisfied as much as could be possible,than all of a sudden it gets pulled away from them. Teddy Roosevelt(My hero) did set up many of the forests for logging purposes and protection of these resources. But he also talked about the recreational aspect of it and how people must stay in touch with the land,and rigors of going out into wilderness type areas.
CrookedPaddler1	06/11/2012 10:06AM I would just like to point out to everyone that the Superior National Forest is over 2 million acres of forested land. I would challenge all of you to look at the reason that our National Forest System was created! It wasn't for recreation at all -- it wasn't until the Multiple Use Act of 1960 that recreation was even considered as part of the USFS. The BWCA is a small portion (albeit an important part) of the Superior National Forest. A portion of the Forest that is managed 100% for recreation and in my opinion that may be a violation of the multiple use act (but I am not complaining!). The mission of the "USFS" is "To sustain the health, diversity, and productivity of the Nation’s forests and grasslands to meet the needs of present and future generations." I would agree that recreation is important to "Present and future generations", but so is the logging and mining. I am not saying we should open the "BWCA" up to logging and mining, but what I am saying is that both of those are certainly within the scope of why the Forest Service was created. We need to put trust in the USFS, the EPA and other organizations that the logging and mining operations will take steps in the harvest process to protect our resources.
PINETREE	06/08/2012 08:48AM quote rharjes: "I'd also like to see a purchase of the lands instead of a swap. Rick" In my opinion the forest service has done a excellent job on managing the land outside the BWCA and the land inside should be exchanged and purchased as many long years of work by both sides on amount of cash and land. 50% cash and 50% land. Why did politics at this moment get into the way of agreement that was satisfactory to the State of Minnesota and The Federal Government. It was the preferred method by Minnesota DNR and the present Governor and also the past Governor. Its a 100% political move close to elections and a nation wide move to get rid of public lands owned by the Federal government and used by all people of all income levels.
BWPaddler	06/08/2012 08:27AM The message I kept hearing was that since Dayton signed the state equivalent legislation (required that both state and feds agree) that MN reps will support it in DC. I don't have much hope for an alternative unless non-MN reps vote it down for some reason.
rharjes	06/07/2012 11:09PM I'd also like to see a purchase of the lands instead of a swap. Rick
arctic	06/07/2012 09:33PM The bill enables a land exchange, as has been discussed in this forum before. State land in the BWCA traded for federal land outside the BWCA. Personally, I'd rather see the feds buy the state lands in the BWCA.
concernedGuest	06/07/2012 07:47PM There will be ahearing on a bill that will make at least 86000 acres accessable to mining and logging companies. Please consider calling your reps and let them know how you feel. Here is some more information: http://sierraclub.typepad.com/layoftheland/2012/06/take-action-stop-the-land-swap.html

BWCA Messageboard