Jump to content
Nugget Shooter Forums

H.R. 4019, Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012


Recommended Posts

Reading the brief below this maybe of some interest to our group. The full text maybe found at http://www.cbo.gov/publication/43299?utm_source=feedblitz&utm_medium=FeedBlitzEmail&utm_content=812526&utm_campaign=0

Cheers, Beers, & Gold

H.R. 4019, Federal Forests County Revenue, Schools, and Jobs Act of 2012

As ordered reported by the House Committee on Natural Resources on February 14, 2011

H.R. 4019 would require the Forest Service to generate a minimum level of receipts each year from certain activities conducted in national forests and to spend a portion of those receipts to make annual payments to certain counties. The bill also would reauthorize the Department of the Interior (DOI) to make mandatory annual payments through 2017 to counties that contain certain federal lands. Finally, the bill would establish a new schedule for the fees paid to the federal government by individuals who own cabins located on Forest Service lands.

Based on information provided by the affected federal agencies, state timber agencies, and individuals working in the timber industry, CBO estimates that enacting the legislation would increase net direct spending by about $2.6 billion over the 2012-2022 period; therefore, pay-as-you-go procedures apply. In addition, the bill would increase discretionary spending for certain Forest Service activities by about $200 million a year over the 2014-2022 period, assuming appropriation of the estimated amounts. Enacting H.R. 4019 would not affect revenues.

H.R. 4019 contains no intergovernmental or private-sector mandates as defined in the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) and would impose no costs on state, local, or tribal governments.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

What it looks lime is they are requiring Forest Service to meet a quota of monetary intake. What they can't get from visitor passes and such, they would have to make up for in fines.

Then, they have to spend an unspecified amount in payments to unspecified counties.

Also, there looks like the rubber stamp for additional fees from cabin owners and timber companies?

This is kinda screwy to say the least. Sounds like the MSHA mandates that turned it from helping miners and companies to ticket first, ticket later, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

"A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government." (George Washington)

Giving up our liberties for safety is the one sure way to let the violent among us, win.

"Though defensive violence will always be a 'sad necessity' in the eyes of men of principle, it would be still more unfortunate if wrongdoers should dominate just men." -Saint Augustine

No state shall convert a liberty to a privilege, license it, and charge a fee therefor.- Murdock vs Pennsylvania 319 US 105

...If the state converts a right into a privelege, the citizen can ignore the license and fee and engage in the right... with impunity.

- Shuttleworth vs City of Birmingham, Alabama 317 US 262

Where rights secured by the Constitution are involved, there can be no legislation which would abrogate them.

- Miranda vs Arizona 384 US 436

Link to comment
Share on other sites


With the above statements,I can see why we are losing our rights.

No one can tell the good from the bad,and will screech about everything,without

even thinking. The above bill is a good thing for all of us,I can't believe that no

one has understood its meaning.

The bill simply puts things back to a time before the greenies took over and broke

our system. It actually requires the Forest Service to generate an income from the

Forest land in the form of actually logging,mining,grazing,and making free loading

big shot cabin owners to pay a reasonable rent ,for our land.

Back before the greens shut the forest down, timber sales generated most of the

money for our schools ,and forest management. Since the timber was left to rot and

burn,those funds have been coming out of your pocket. The same is true for grazing,

and mining. Does any of you think it is fair for some rich tree hugging jerk to build a

cabin on your land ,and not pay a fair rent? Before you get too worried about their

rent increase ,here is a clue. Most of these folks are the same people that don't want

any other forest users on the land.

There is not one single word in that bill,that suggests that money will be raised by fines.

It does suggest though ,that our land and resources will be put back into a self sustaining

system through real multiple land use laws. The above bill also states that some of the

hurdles put in place by ignorant groups,and politicians will be circumvented,to allow more

use by the public,as in resource use,and land management.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well for what it is worth,this bill was the result of a lot of hard work by

real forest users ,and lobby groups to put things back to a real multiple

use management. This bill is not just something dreamed up by a bunch

of politicians.

It is the first honest effort to actually reverse the damage done to our

forests,and the effects to the economy by environmental groups. It also

changes the Forest Service back into a self supporting agency instead

of a welfare dependent do nothing money pit,that it has become.It is

designed to make the Forest Service actually manage ,and produce an

income from the resources instead of mooch from the taxpayers and let

the resources rot.

This bill is not taking any rights,but is restoring rights,to use and manage

the land,while providing jobs,and money from the now wasted resources,

that have been locked up by idiots.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From what I understand about this bill, sawmill is absolutely correct. The bill is authored by congressman Peter Defazio and the intent is to mandate the federal government to extract resources (predominantly timber) at a scheduled and predictable rate in order to make payments in liu of taxes to counties that are predominantly federal forest and historically relied on timber reciepts.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hello All, I would have to agree with Sawmill, if you do read some or part of the Bill it does just that, puts money back in the local counties. I am no expert but from as much as I read it is pretty well puts things back as before. Our schools in Northern California have been suffering since logging money went away and this will start to restore some of that. For a poor county like Trinity it will put millions of dollars back to local use.

I also would have to agree that these "cabins" most of which are owned by large companies and many "greenie" organizations are usually at locations prohibitive to public use. I have been following this bill and waiting for it to come out, it is the first of many that hopefully will come out to put things back in place that have been shuffled around the last ten or so years. We do have many groups and organizations that are trying to protect our rights to be sure they dont go away. My opinions, TRINITYAU/RAYMILLS

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
  • Create New...