Talk:Daniel Boone National Forest/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Recent Controversy

I added a map to show the fragmented land ownership pattern. I also heavily edited the text added by 209.209.140.21, removing POV, personal opinion, fixing grammar, etc. Some of this text I simply did not understand and removed. It sounds interesting, but I can't follow. Can it be rewritten in a more understandable way? Here's some of the text I removed but would like to see described better:

"Many members of the people may not realise that "payments in lue of property taxes" are made to the local governments to allow "management" of forrest designated lands and create an interest in allowing takeover of any derilect tracts not of commercial value to increase local off-the-budget re-venues (CAFR - (deleteted)(comprehensive annual financial report." see Government financial reports

The Forest Service/Dept. of Agriculture has always had an interest in acquiring "derelict" lands, "tax-deliquent" lands, etc. This is not unique to Daniel Boone NF. I don't understand "payments ... made to local governments..." Who is paying whom? And what is "forest designated lands"? Federal national forests, state forests, or something else?

    • the first paragraph says it the Nat Forrest Service compensates county (and city) governments for tied up land that is not able to generate property (and schooltax) re-venue. When one has the blank credit blip checkbook what cant you buy? Who cares if creating credit causes inflation? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) .
User 209.209.140.21, it isn't polite to edit someone else's words on a talk page like this. While the Forest Service is part of the Dept. of Agriculture, you should point that out in your own words instead of editing mine. Thank you. Pfly 01:49, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some vagueness in the state legislative process for the constitutional "ownership" of these lands in Kentucky was highlighted by..."

This sounds interesting, but do you mean the federal constitution or the Kentucky constitution? And what does "constitutional ownership" mean anyway?

"...highlighted by the efforts of State Representive Perry Clark in the late 1990's reguarding his investigating along with "Take Back Kentucky" the "United Nations Man and the Biosphere project" and restricted land use associated with lands adjacent to such designated areas as the Land Between the Lakes and Mamouth Caves as "Biosphere Reserves and "Core Areas"."

This sounds interesting, but really needs editing and more information. What are these investigations? The links are dead.

      • I put links in but someone(several) didnt like em and took them out??!!! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) .


"Rep. Perry Clark was not able to find in Frankfort constitutionally required state legislative permission for a "Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17" (forts magazines and other needful buildings without said state's permission) federal purchase and ownership of lands within Kentucky."

I don't understand. Are you talking about the Kentucky constitution or the federal? Is the idea here that by Kentucky law the federal government is not legally allowed to own land in Kentucky without permission, and such permission was not given for Daniel Boone National Forest? If so, that would be interesting, but some references and links would help. Seems hard to believe.

    • yes the clause 17 reference of the "federal" constitution says that a state must grant permission to the fed to take land. This has never been amended or overturned and is for specific purposes not for the biosphere project but "forts magazines arsenels and other needful buldings...", not uncompensated bufferzones restricting private land owners uses just because they are in a certain watershed. No act can ament the constitution except an amendment. (unless the militia shortwave gun nuts are correct about the 1925 opATTY Gen opinion about the gold fringed flags meaning that the executive occupation militaryily and not constitutionally which would explain why that is considered a frivoulous argument, they got the guns and bullets.) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 209.209.140.21 (talk • contribs) .

"A state resolution was passed in 1998 against the UN Man and the Biosphere Project by the state legislature one of the first in America."

What is UN Man and Biosphere Project? First in America of what -- a state resolution against such a thing? I don't understand. Would like to though. Can it be rewritten in a more understandable way, with references and links? That would be great. Pfly 02:36, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

NPOV text and links, and the need for copyediting (spelling, grammar, etc) and wikification seem to be increasing. Anonymous 209.209.140.21, take a look at Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, and Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, and Wikipedia:Words to avoid (look for the section "So-called, supposed, alleged, purported" especially). Also Wikipedia:Manual of Style could help in making text more readable and less confusing. A spellchecker would help. It took me a while to figure out what "in lue of payment" meant, for example. Pfly 22:32, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
The editor who added this might have the kernel of a good section, but only the kernel. It is highly inappropriate to refer to Wikipedia as a "forum" within an article. This section has a strong POV in favor of local landowners and numerous other problems. Durova 15:02, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
The links I added are relevant and part of the controversy

the easterncougar.org(s) are promoting and protecting these large carnivors in amounst the people that have lived there for decades or longer. Black Bear populations are larger than when Jamestown (VA)was established with reference to a PBS special broadcast last year. Even given this two men were convicted for shooting rogue bears in their yard, one after it had broken into a elderly ladies' home and another after he said it reared up on him in his garden. If private land owners dont or can't fight this there wont be any private land other than approved populations centers and cooridors (by design?). Research the property rights organizations materials yourself. I like some animals, and the woods but I am not alone in not wanting to have to worry about my boy or even my house cat getting eaten by a cayote or panther or bear OH MY, we're not in kansas anymore toto. The environuts are comming and they are well funded from where? You can scream NPOV all day long till a bear breaks in your house cause he smells the cheeze inside your fridge. I had links to all sides of these issues triing to give both sides but they got deleted. I have studied these issues for over a decade.

That particular viewpoint would be better in a private website than in Wikipedia. Policy requires that the encyclopedia entry be neutral. That means giving fair space to the opposing side. A subject that hits close to home might not be the best topic for an editor to work on. In my own case, I never edit World Trade Center or 9/11 because my nearest relative survived the attack from a high floor and I joined the armed forces and went to war because of it. I just couldn't be objective on those articles, so occasionally I comment on the talk pages and I leave other Wikipedians to do the editing. I've met my share of wild animals also including two different face-to-face encounters with bears - so I understand the perspective of wanting to protect children. The point is, if you feel obligated to protect someone or to raise awareness of a cause, it would be better to start your own citizens' group or website. Certain types of worthy goals fall outside the scope of an encyclopedia. Durova 05:47, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
      • What particular viewpoint? that is the point I am documenting the current state of things with links to both sides namely TAKEBACKKENTUCY v. KENTUCKYHEARTWOOD; (treesitters verses privateproperty lovers) there is no such thing as a perrrrfect NPOV or neutral point of view, we all have baggage and limited perspectives dispite all the feminatzie empathy training and rampant antropomorphism. It is not anyone's duty to allow a artifical creature namely a non-proffit "non govermental organization" to promote the increase of populations of large carnivors in the back yards of where our children play.

Now if you will review the former links posted and the reasons given by various editors as to why they were removed and the remaining links you see a slanted adgenda is revealed the other way as well as the sin of ommision. I posted links to internal and external sources for BOTH dang SIDES of these issues and they were nit picked for style and content instead of fixing the style of the link or footnote. I do have one good example of how an editor handled my post that had a stylistic or syntax error. See the entry for "Devils River" and Devil's river the disambiguity page was fixed and a proper style of page was created with my original discussion intact. Now I did not find that insulting or a censorship of the ideas concepts presented and I think week-pedia is less week as a result. Perhaps some "editors" should act more like editors and less like trolls or grammer, spelling and political police. A bunch of brits on here (or UK) use all sorts of kang's aenglish spellings and grammer on hyre and whair's them nit pickers respelling all those words. Or is it a conditioning program from the grandsons of Cecil Rhodes efforts. (we'll get those yanks used to the proper english and thay wont even notice when the FTAA is implemeneted, buy your bannanas by the kilo eh?) I speak 'merican; that is the language of belligerant occupants of the crown's and or vatican's property or claims of lein's from funny money funds loaned to Lincoln et cetera> BTW- there were 5 dictonary of American Language and webster just won out with secret handshakes ifn ya ax me!(ebonics) Tag and go or block deletes dont improve week-pedia from this perspective...

Thoughts and questions and "Recent controversies" section

Hey, user "209.209.140.21", since you wrote this section, I'm addressing these thoughts and questions mainly to you. I was thinking about this section last night and it occured to me that the topics you've raised, if I understand them right, are common to many national forests, parks, and other federal lands, especially in the east, and perhaps most of all in the Daniel Boone National Forest. At first I thought that some of these issues were not unique to Daniel Boone NF and might be better on a page specifically about local vs federal conflicts of these types. But after thinking about it some more, the Daniel Boone NF may be the perfect place to get into it, since the "Boone", as those environmentalists say, seems to be a particularly clear example.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I admit I am fond of national forests and environmentalism, conservation, and protection/preservation of land, especially land with outstanding forests and biodiversity, as I understand the southern Appalachians to be in general. There's a bias of mine. But as I've learned more about the history of federal land management, especially in the central/southern Appalachians, I've seen again and again ways in which the feds have not always been exactly noble and virtuous in the way they go about creating and managing their growing land holdings. The way, for example, Smoky Mountain National Park was created, has unpleasant and controversial issues regarding eminant domain and a pattern of giving yards to big corporations (timber companies mostly, I think), and inches if that to small farmers.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Similarly, the national forests of the central/southern Appalachians have grown over the 20th century from basically zero to by far the largest amount of land under a single landlord agency. Some of the process seems to have been done well and for the good of the land and region, but other aspects are questionable or obviously underhanded. Other federal agencies that are essentially landlords of relatively large tracts of valuable land in the region include the TVA, whose use of eminant domain and unfair displacement of people still makes me cringe when thinking about it, and the military, in the form of military bases as well as Army Corps of Engineers dams and reservoirs. I think the military manages more land than the TVA in the central/southern Appalachians; perhaps more than the National Park Service.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The conflict between locals and the federal government's massive increase in land holdings/management in the Appalachians during the 20th century takes many forms, and it worth describing. I think I might be able to do a halfway decent job of it, even with a bias toward conservation because I'm annoyed and sometimes shocked about the way the federal government has done business in Appalachia. And I think the Daniel Boone NF page may be a good place to describe at least some of the topic, since it seems to be one of the most fragmented and controversial of the national forests.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Having said all that, I'm thinking I could take a stab at copyediting the "Recent controversies" section you wrote. I think you touch on a lot of these issues. But I have trouble following your writing -- reading it tends to leave me half confused and half thinking you have a very strong bias yourself. If I get the time/energy, I'll try to copyedit it into something I hope will be more readable and relatively neutral in bias, if you don't mind.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

There are a few parts of the "Recent controversies" section I don't quite understand though. If I do try to copyedit it, it would be useful if you helped me understand a few points you raise:Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

1. "Several impoverished landowners do not contest these appropriations in court because the commercial value of disputed boundary claims is less than the cost of a legal dispute." ..and.. "Many members of the public may not realise that federal "payments in lieu of property taxes" are made to the local governments to allow management of forest designated lands and create an interest in allowing takeover of any derelict tracts not of commercial value to increase local off-the-budget re-venues."

My first thought reading this is, if someone owns land why would they have to go to court, even if they are poor? I don't think the Forest Service uses eminant domain to cease land (or do they?). So a landowner should simply be able to say "no" and not sell and not have to go to court about it. On the other hand, perhaps you are thinking of cases where the landowner is in debt and there is a risk or threat of foreclosure? Or perhaps they are tax-deliquent, unable (or unwilling?) to pay property taxes with the result that the federal government is able to seize their land? I could believe either of these, but don't know if they actually happen in that exact way. Another possibility is the "takeover of derelict tracts" -- but I'm not sure what "derelict" means, legally. I'm guessing it means tax-deliquent to the point of allowing the government to seize the land, is that right?Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Another angle, less controversial maybe, is the possibility that lands near the national forest, especially popular recreation areas, may see their property taxes go up out of the ability of locals to pay. Is that part of it? And another possibility is that the Forest Service and other organizations in with conservation/preservation interests could make life hard for local owners in various ways -- allowing roads to go bad, surrounding a private tract with protected tracts with various restrictions, etc -- in effect a kind of low-level threat to the landowner.. like saying "sure you can keep your land, but it will get harder and harder to live there, so why don't you sell?"Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

These are some of my guesses as to what you meant by the above quotes. Am I close? If you know of good sources of information on this kind of thing (and not overly biased politically, if that is possible), I'd defintely take a look.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

My ISP is really crapping out, I live in the woods after all(fog/moisture/long-servicedrop-et cetera). The feds take advantage from what I have seen of the old deed descriptions and err on the side of increasing plots in forrest favor not the private adjacent owners. hense the expression over decades "the red paint keeps getting closer to the back poarch."
I can believe that. If nothing else, I've gotten the impression that land deeds in Kentucky (and Tennessee) can be quite messy and contradictory if you trace them back far enough. The metes-and-bounds surveys plus various land speculation fraud and plain survey sloppiness results in disputes continuing today, if I have it right. I imagine the feds would take the trouble to dig into old records and determine the "right" boundaries, esp when it serves their interests. A tangentially related thing is that Daniel Boone himself filed many land patents in Kentucky but apparently failed to keep any of them due to legal action over disputed boundaries. So yea, I can believe it. Btw, I'm somehow envious of "living in the woods" with fogs and all, though perhaps not without the flakey net connection. (oh and I edited your line breaks a little to help make this discussion more clear as to who is saying what) Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

2. "Concerns have been raised about the population of large carnivores by some non-governmental organizations which promote the reintroduction and migration of cougars, bears, coyotes, and wolves."

I have the impression that eastern Kentucky and the central/southern Appalachians in general already have populations of bears and coyotes, with a few rare cougars. No wolves. Maybe no cougars, I'm not sure. I can believe that there are groups out there that promote the introduction of cougars and wolves, and perhaps more bears, to Kentucky, but I am unaware of any serious efforts to actually do so. By "serious" I mean at least something on the level of the effort to reintroduce wolves to northern Arkansas -- a major controversy there. The cougar website you posted seemed to promote the idea, but is not seriously trying to make it a reality like groups are trying in Arkansas. I'd be interested in learning about groups with strong plans to introduce wolves and cougars to Kentucky if you know of any. Maybe I didn't read the website you posted close enough, but it seemed to be more along the lines of "we'd like this" and less "we're going to do this". Also, aren't there cougars already in Kentucky? I didn't think they were ever totally wiped out, even if they are very rare today. Bears also, I would be surprised to learn there are no bears in Kentucky. Coyotes I don't know, but I'd be surprised to learn of groups trying to introduce coyotes anywhere. They seem to introduce themselves to new places very well on their own. Wolves would be a big deal, but it's hard for me to believe there is any serious effort to introduce wolves to central/southern Appalachians.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Or did I read you wrong -- are you saying that the habitat protection that goes along with conservation/preservation is allowing existing populations of cougars, bears, and coyotes to expand and grow? That would be different, and much more believable. I know there is a large and growing population of bears in Cherokee National Forest, Tennessee; and that the core bear areas are specially protected to allow the bears to thrive. Is something similar happening in Kentucky?Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

(Later note: I looked at the website you posted and reread your earlier comment above and see that the bears and cougars are not to be "introduced" but rather that the existing populations to be protected and encouraged to grow. This is an issue common to national forests and other such lands across the country, but worthy of mention, esp as Daniel Boone NF is so fragmented, resulting in more proximity of wildlife and residents. On the other hand, it's hard for me to believe that locals are not allowed to protect themselves on their own land if a dangerous animal is present. Will look into it more.) Pfly 17:27, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(Another later note: After some research, I've learned there are efforts to introduce wolves in Kentucky and the southern Appalachians; although red wolves, not gray. Red wolves are much smaller and today thought to be highly interbreed with coyotes. There was an attempt to introduce them in Land Between the Lakes, but it failed. An effort in Great Smoky Mountains resulted in almost failure and many red wolves dying, but apparently about 30 are still there in the wild. And yes, there are groups actively trying to introduce them to the central/southern Appalachians, particularly in West Virginia. I haven't found anything specific to Daniel Boone NF, but I suspect there are efforts there too. ...cougar groups seem to be not so much trying to introduce cougars so much as work to confirm there ARE any at all (there seems to be some in central Appalachians), and to educate people about them. Same for bear advocate groups. The main question I have not found the answer to is -- cougars and red wolves are listed as endangered species. What does that mean for private landowners if one happened to come onto their property? If it acted aggressively or actually attacked the landowners animals (or people)? I suspect the landowner would have the right to defend life (and perhaps some property), even if it meant shooting an endangered species animal. But I'm not sure... still researching) Pfly 21:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

(Later later note: it seems that the rights of property owners wrt the Endangered Species Act are not totally codified. I managed to find a few essays on it that aren't super-politically-biased (was hard to do!). From a quick read, it seems one's rights are often not very clearly defined under current laws.Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

3. "On many commercially available maps the green area of the forest is depicted as solid but it is actually a patchwork of tracts intermingled with private, county and state properties which sometimes get shuffled through swaps, barters and exchange or purchase. One example is the nearly unforested quarry tracts swapped near Clearfield's Klack Mountain for land on the Licking River in Morgan County."

This kind of thing is normal for national forests, especially in the east, as I understand it. Daniel Boone NF is special in the degree of fragmentation, but the swaps, barters, exchanges, etc, is common across the country. Various governments, local, state, federal, and NGOs like the Nature Conservancy, routinely do these kinds of swaps. I'm not sure I see anything inherently wrong or troublesome with this, although I'm sure there are sometimes some sneaky exchanges made. Your example of exchanging quarry tracts for land on the Licking River sounds like exactly the kind of thing the Forest Service does all the time to consolidate forest lands. I'm guessing this swap you describe is the Forest Service giving some company quarry lands with commercial value in exchange for Licking River lands the Forest Service is more interested in, is that right? What's wrong with that? Or did I misunderstand?Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

this particular swap went outside the purchase boundary but that was not the point. Acreage can be increased this way and property owners can find themselves an island surrounded by forrestland that was private for decades.
Yea, that kind of passive aggressive method is something I thought might be done, whether intentionally or not. I do believe that the Forest Service seeks to consolidate its holdings and great larger blocks rather than scattered tracts. But I'm sure there are many cases where individual landowners get stuck surrounded by miles and miles of FS land, which while perhaps nice for the proximity to nature, must be hard in many many ways. Perhaps as I copyedit, I can delete specific references to the swap you described, if the general point is the "surrounding" thing. A general statement might be more useful than a single specific one. Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

4. "...public lands that are nicknamed "the boone" by some enviromental activists; that tend to refer to the entire eastern half of the state when refering to the forest which was the footprint for the original "Cumberland National Forest" program from the United States Department of Agriculture as evidenced on older pre-1965 topographical series maps."

This I have trouble understanding. Are you saying the Cumberland National Forest pre-1965 included all of eastern Kentucky? That doesn't match the information I have. Or do you mean environmentalists take about "The Boone" as if it were all of eastern Kentucky, even though the national forest is only one section of the region? I guess I don't quite understand the point you are making, or why pre-1965 maps are referenced. Pre-1965 would be when the national forest was named Cumberland NF, but as far as I know the area of the forest was the same and only the name changed (excepting the Redbird District created in the late 1960s). In other words, I just don't understand your point in this part.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

the older maps do not make the distinction between federalforrest and private forrest,just big patches of green; the charactor of the Agraculture Dept. program has changed from helping the state and farmers manage their own forrest and logging to "owning" the purchace area holdings on a seeming ever increasing scale.
The maps I have seen are copies but the label for the C U M B E R L A N D National Forrest streches clear accross most of eastern cantuck.

These maps are where the organizations like heartwood, I think, get the idea that the "boon" should orginally cover the east half of the state from the perception that it was shaved back to it's present "purchase" area .

Hmm, I can believe there were early proposals for a much larger national forest, but it seems not to have happened (although the Redbird District is a development in that direction!). Also, from what I've been reading, there is the national forest, and then there is what the FS calls the "Area of Influence" (AOI), which includes the forest and the surrounding areas. Add to that the national forests along the KY-VA-WV border, and I could see some people talking about all of eastern kentucky as a region to focus conservation efforts on. Still it would be nice to find some good sources on it. I looked, briefly, at the heartwood websites but could not find anything on this particular idea.Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

5. "Many members of the public may not realise that federal "payments in lieu of property taxes" are made to the local governments to allow management of forest designated lands and create an interest in allowing takeover of any derelict tracts not of commercial value to increase local off-the-budget re-venues."

I am not quite sure what you mean. My guess is -- the federal government offers local governments money equal to or more than the local governments would make from property taxes on particular tracts, in exchange for those tracts being given to the Forest Service for management? That doesn't sound so wrong. Or is it that the federal government offers to pay deliquent property taxes on "derelict" (but privately-owned) lands in exchange for local governments seizing the land for tax default, then turning the land over to the Forest Service? That would be a bit more shady, though probably not at all uncommon over the 20th century in Appalachia. Worthy of mention for sure, but what is the main point of controversy? --that the feds are encouraging local governments to crack down on landowners behind on their taxes, or that the government is able to seize tax deliquent land in the first place? Or have I totally missed the point?Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

6. "Also nongovernmnetal organizations also acquire land using donations to reserve for forested land, some of which may be donated to the government."

(artifical person increasing linear habitat for large carnivores to be done over long range planning to squeeze out the people)*http://www.lickingriver.org/

- *http://www.kyheartwood.org/ - *http://prfamerica.org/ - *http://www.takebackkentucky.com/ - *http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/dec_2003/thewildlands.htm - *http://www.citizenreviewonline.org/Oct_2002/a_country2.htm

It could. Whether squeezing out people is a goal of the animal protection people I'm still skeptical about. I currently live in the Pacific Northwest where there are plenty of bears and other large, potentially dangerous creatures (esp northward into Canada). I'm not convinced that the presence of such animals in a region means people have to go. I can understand the concern and argument, but think bears, red wolves, even gray wolves, and cougars can and have been living near human populations with few incidents for a long time, at least in some regions. I think it could be ok in the Appalachians too, but am willing to be convinced otherwise. The fragmentation of Daniel Boone NF is definitely a problem -- but then that implies that the Forest Service's attempts to consolidate holdings into larger blocks should help, so long as they don't do it unethically...Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Unless I misunderstand you, this is totally normal and commonly done across the country, and I'm not sure I see anything wrong with it? If an NGO buys land with money acquired through donations or whatever, and then turns it over to the government, ...what's wrong with that? Many wonderful parks were created when some rich person donated their land to the government. On the other hand, I'm aware that some of the NGOs you may be thinking of, like the Nature Conservancy, have some cushy and inside-trading-type arrangements with the government. The Nature Conservancy sometimes seems to act like a pseudo-government agency, with various questionable perks granted by the government. Is that what you are getting at? I don't know much more about that topic that what I just wrote. I've seen some highly politically biased rants against groups like the Nature Conservancy, but I have a hard time trusting highly politicized rants. If you know of some less biased sources of information, let me know!Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

( "Normal" doent make it right or constitutional , but maybe non-constitutional as opposed to unconstitutional (NGO's for instance) or whatever, like funny funds from foundations from who knows where? - see research by kentucky attorney Kent Masterson Brown for social engineering efforts using NGO', trusts and such) There are more black bears(dump bears or big fuzzy fussy pigs) in the East than when Jamestown was founded in 1611 as per a PBS documentary aired last year. Some bears have quadruplets and triplet litters. and Problems are bound to increase as their sence of smell in better than deer and they have been a problem for over 15years, basically KDFWR-fish and wildlife cattle without fences for hunting re-venues or great business-for-bodyshop-car magnets) It used to be if you got lost in Kentucky you could follow a possum back to the road now a Deer will do ha? Soon a bear? no wait they tend to chase you especiall if you smell like your lunch or theirs a cub around.


7. "Some vagueness in the state legislative process (or record) for the constitutional ownership of these lands in Kentucky was highlighted by the efforts of State Representive Perry Clark in the late 1990s reguarding his investigation along with "Take Back Kentucky" the "United Nations Man and the Biosphere project" and restricted land use associated with lands adjacent to such designated areas as Land Between The Lakes National Recreation Area and Mammoth Cave National Park as "Biosphere Reserves and "Core Areas"."

This whole section I would have to research more to understand what you are describing exactly. But I think you've provided enough sources for me to research. The issues around the Land Between the Lakes and Mammoth Cave are not directly related to Daniel Boone NF. Plus those places are managed by wholly different federal agencies. But in the broader context of federal landlordship in Kentucky, I can see the connection. As far as I know, Daniel Boone NF is not a Biosphere Area, is it? Mammoth Cave is a ways away, and Land Between the Lakes is clear across the state. But I'll look into the stuff you bring up.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

((seems to me that is the point of referencing of an artical to allow for following the links but mine keep getting deleted.))
I've kept your links and have been reading them. On the other hand, the cougar link and the property rights link seemed relatively unrelated to Daniel Boone National Forest itself, which is what this article is supposedly about. Plus, both links struck me as having a specific activist agenda, which I'm not sure is really appropriate for an encyclopedia. I realize they speak to the larger issues you raise. Perhaps the ideal solution would be to make a new wikipedia page on the topic of these controversies for central/southern Appalachia as a whole, rather than just the Daniel Boone NF. Anyway, I kept the links and am looking into it more. Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
(the site said) kentuckyblack association address was located in montana.The WVA cougar site lists cats runover on kentucky roads (floyd co.)with southamericanpather DNA and cougar mixed? Campers were woke up in JennyWiley Park in 2002 when the unofficial camp pet racoon was taken from within 30 feet of a campfire for a bunch of preteen boys and girls.
Sorry, I'm having trouble understanding what you are getting at... Pfly 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
Numerous media stories have been regionally published on joggers and bikers hikers being chased or eaten by cougars especially out west,California, Idaho,Arizona etc. Cayote surrounded a VFDfirefighter in Rockcastle County,as reported byWKYTTV (in2005?) he was able to get back to his ATV to escape.
Cougar attacks I can believe, though I have the impression they are exceedingly rare. In any case, I could just add somthing to this article on Daniel Boone NF about there being concern over the possible growth of cougar populations due to fear of cougars attacking people. On coyotes, I'm sure there are all kinds of coyote-human encounters that have been unpleasant/dangerous. But I know of no group seriously working to increase coyote populations and expand their range. They are doing that quite well all by themselves as far as I know. In Washington State there is a relatively popular coyote hunting season. So I'm not sure what the issue is with regard to coyotes in Kentucky. They are not endangered and not protected any more than, say, deer, as far as I know. Pfly 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

8. "Rep. Perry Clark was not able to find in Frankfort constitutionally required state legislative permission for a "Article 1 Section 8 Clause 17" (from the federal constition, i.e.- forts magazines and other needful buildings without said state's permission) federal purchase and ownership of such lands within Kentucky. This is thought to be the reason for the use of the semantical management and "payments in lieu of property taxes""

I can believe there is a constitutional clause like this, but find it hard to believe Kentucky never gave the okay. Maybe Perry Clark didn't look hard enough? :-) The Kentucky Senate passed resolutions urging the name change to Daniel Boone NF, which seems to imply they ok'ed the NF in the first place. But in any case, when you say "this is thought to be the reason for the use of..." -- I wonder, who are you refering to? "This is thought..." -- by whom? My first guess, perhaps wrong, is that phrases like "payments in lieu of property taxes" and "management" rather than "ownership" reflect the mumbo-jumbo ten-dollar-word impressive and somewhat confusing sounding text politicals like to use, rather than something required due to a sneaky "under the constitutional radar" issue. I could be wrong, but to be convinced I'd want more than just "Perry Clark was not able to find..." and "this is thought to be..." Got any clearer sources?Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I reworded this abit but I talked with him as a reporter and was at the speech he gave to (Norm Davis' organization) "TakeBackKentucky" in 1997/98 where he presented the current restrictions on property --(that only became relevant to elected representitives when it began to affect their own property. (the federal constitution reference is easy to find)mykeyboardhadquitworking_overnoutfernow...
Okay still need a new keyboard...the original department of agraculture programs were to help manage forrest lands (in Kentucky not a federal area) and with progressive carrot and stick funding; building fire towers, fighting fires, innocuous or benificial stuff it has been converted to more and more restricted use "federal land". The Pro-claim-ation boundary seems pretty obvious as a goal for aqusition and the boundary isn't written in stone as evidenced by the expansion up the licking river into morgan county.(and the redbird dist.)and the growing acreage over the decades. WorldBook 1949 vol#10 -says Cumberland National Forrest is 900,000 acres in coverage; proclamation boundary or not?
Yep, this all sounds basically accurate to me. I don't have a copy of the WorldBook 1949, but I'd guess the 900,000 acres was the proclamation boundary. It has been increased since 1949, no doubt. It's over 2 million acres today. Still the area under Forest Service management today is less than 900,000 acres. So that sounds like the early proclamation boundary size to me. I do think that the way national forests are created and their proclamation boundaries changed is messed up. As I understand it, it comes down to presidential say-so, which isn't very democratic. Pfly 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The various amounts listed on the net offically and in this article, show the acreage for "the boone" increasing from 620,000(circa1995) to ~706,000 acres for 2006. That is nearly 86,000 in ~10years not including the wildlands NGO type aquisitions of say 14,000 to round up to say 100,000 acres concervatively; it is no great exercise to see in 2 generations(~40years)at this rate the holdings will leave only small approved population areas with restricted use not resembling private property.
AND Roadless zones like out west could be imposed shutting off folks or making them drive around wildlands areas much greater distances to get to their county courthouse or work.
I don't know... 86,000 acres over 10 years, in a region of 2+ million acres doesn't sound like very much. Something around 4%. Even with an additional 100,000 acres, after 40 years this would still leave more than half the land in the proclamation boundary private, if I have my math right. On the other hand, I do think there is a trend toward increasing the amount of protected land in the United States in general. But even in Washington State, which is very pro-national forest / wilderness / protected land, proposals to create new wildernesses recently have failed -- though the situation in Kentucky could be different. Pfly 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I searched for more info on this but had trouble finding much. I will try again later. I have to admit the "Take Back Kentucky" website scares me in its extreme bias and obvious political agenda. Makes me hard to trust anything they say. I understand and sympathize with the underlying ideas, but that website was scary. (and I am also scared by equally sensationalized politicized pro-environmental websites, to be fair) ...a problem with a speech that you hear is that it is probably hard to cite from wikipedia, which would make it little more than your word. A good source would be better. I'll look harder when I get a chance. And yes, the federal clause I found easily, but the specifics with Kentucky and Daniel Boone NF are not so easy... Pfly 09:01, 18 October 2006 (UTC)
well I certainly hope you never have to defend yourself using only a knife or car keys against bears or thugs; I certainly hope no future U.S. president issues Decision directives or inititives designating your garage as public access/no warrent required/ and confiscates your conveyance (for chinese pollution credits) and you lose your job cause you cant get to work (that wasnt outsouced).(epa IIact1992?) Hope you don't like steak cause cows produce greenhouse gases. Hope you dont have to move cause the creek(crick) gets declared a American heritage watershed Or the road a scenic bi-way. Those are some of the "bias" impressions, I take from TBK's adgenda which they document extensively. Their bias is the Bill of Rights and Kentucky's proper constitional unleinable rights not granted by government. They dont care much for restrictions on rights in the name of such concepts as sustainablity and the likes of Gore's "RE-INVENTING Gover-nance"
Hehe, I'm not sure I understand why you wrote this, but -- yes, I have had to defend myself with car keys against thugs (I used to live in New York City). And no -- I've encountered bears but never had problems with them. My garage is still mine, and I would not mind it if my city put in sidewalks even if it meant a partial loss of sovereignty over the curb strip. And I did recently lost my job because it was too difficult to get to. And I don't like steak, but I think we'll have cattle for a long time to come. I'd write more but it is late and I need to sleep. Pfly 08:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
The Other side is Kentucky Heartwood/Kentuckians for the Commonwealth where I learnt of "the boone" references and economic engineering of the area away from farming, logging and toward service & tourism(not a economic foundation for wealth building).

9. "A state resolution was passed in 1998 against the United Nations Man and the Biosphere Project by the state, one of the first in America."

Got any specifics on this? I'll look into it. I don't know a lot about the Biosphere Project stuff. My impression was that the Biosphere designations have no real legal weight, but are basically a way for a region to get tagged as "globally important biodiversity", which the central/southern Appalachians definitely are. But I could be wrong, will have to look into it.Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The wikipedia UN man and the biosphere article is a start (I read about the resolution in the paper et.c, email TBK on the resolution unless you can find Perry Clark of west Louisville )Designations of biospheres tend to make for less flak when issueing a executive order to shut dow roads and restrict adjacent private lands.

Thanks for any help with these questions! Perhaps we can make this article into something truly useful. (ps, I signed each paragraph, so feel free to add comments in there wherever)Pfly 16:55, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

This Talk page has gotton long and flaged I just orginally wanted to post a few paragraphs about the over a decade of conroversies with sources , over the forrest and forrest trends like roadless areas cutting off inhabitants and the trends affecting our area with links to those oranizations pushing and pulling from inside and outside the state. It should be mentioned without a novella to explain it and back and forth hacking away at external AND internal links to even wikipedia pages; I have to wonder why so many other articles dont get so much attention. I have contributed under multiple url and IPS not just this one and a bunch of my postings dont get this much wrangling or flagging. Seems like the NPOV police are a bit selective in NPOV nit picking from my perspective.