Government taking away U.P. cabins

D

Deleted member 10829

Guest
rp7x sent me that story over the weekend. :( It is too bad for those camps and seems unnecessary.
 

old abe

Well-known member
Sad story for sure. I feel for those involved. But when ever you build something on land you do not own, this can, and does happen. If you rent/lease property, and improve it, you don't get to take your improvements, no matter what they are with you. They stay with the property as whole. Many times, all previous agreements are nullified on the property transaction, including the lease terms. The Feds honored the lease terms of these people, that is good. And these people had to know something like this was going to happen someday, no matter with who. They did not own it. I had a chance to purchase the lease of some property, and a cabin on the Mississippi river from a long time close family friend. I chose not to for this very reason. This same type risk was there. That property and cabin are still there, but many others are gone. It happens, no matter who acquires the land/property, Gov, corp, or private. They enjoyed them selves for many years.
 

frnash

Active member
Oh what a flashback!

This is too bad. It doesn't seem like thesse [sic] cabins are really hurting anything.
http://www.freep.com/story/news/col...29/michigan-upper-peninsula-cabins/100594194/
From the article:
"Armas Ojaniemi, 60, of Bruce Crossing

Like so many in the western Upper Peninsula, his family came over from Finland nearly a century ago, and they’d practically lived in these remote woods ever since …

People built structures in all shapes and sizes most were bare-bones log cabins without power or running water. But they were solid camps that lasted for decades."
Oh that story was quite the flashback for me!

Back at da family farm north of Bruce Crossing, way back in the 1940s or perhaps before, my uncles and several of their neighbors and hunting companions build such a "camp" down along the Middle Branch of the Ontonagon river, below the clay slides.

The cabin was located about a 2½ mile hike from the farm, somewhere roughly in the outlined area on this map, on the west side of the Middle Branch:

Nara camp map.JPG

It was kind of traditional (click →) Finnish log construction.

<https: www.nps.gov="" nr="" twhp="" wwwlps="" lessons="" 4logcabins="" 4logcabins.htm="">There were two rooms, each about ≈12'x12', a bunkroom with 2 bunk beds (sleeps 4), and a kitchen which were connected by a narrower ≈8' x 12' "breezeway", open in front and enclosed on the rear, that was used as sheltered firewood storage.

The bunks in the bedroom were at the north end, aligned along the front and back walls, with an old pot bellied wood stove for heating located at the opposite end of the room, adjacent to the center "breezeway" wall.

The front of the cabin faced away from the river, with the back wall of the "breezeway" toward the river.

The kitchen had a sink on the south wall, with a drain plumbed through the wall and toward the river. Also ample storage cabinets above and to either side, well stocked with cookware, dinnerware and utensils. Also a wood fired cook stove, and a 4-place dining table. There was no other plumbing, but fresh water was conveniently available from an artesian well just a short hike away; water was carried from the well to the cabin in the 10 gallon milk cans that were used on the farm.

There were several windows in both the bunkroom and kitchen, complete with glass panes and fancy curtains! Quite nice, for a "primitive" log cabin!

You had to pack in whatever food you planned to have, and pack out any remainder, so as to not feed the mice and other critters.

I spent several nights at the camp with my uncles during deer season in my late teens. On one occasion, we awoke on Sunday morning to stunningly beautiful blue skies, planning on heading back to the farm. But there was a very loud roaring sound, like a flight of B-52s passing nearby at a low altitude. (They really used to do that, around there, too!) We packed up up the two deer and all our of our gear and headed up the clayslide to the west. (Very much like this picture from the article):

Clayslide along the Middle Branch.jpg

When we got about a half mile along the way we discovered what the huge roaring noise was.

Mister Bleezard!

There was one helluva heavy blinding storm headed toward us from the west, and it had already dumped waist high snow for us to slog through for another two miles to the farm, while hauling two deer carcasses and all of the supplies we packed out! What a trip! What a memory!

Some years later I learned that the camp had been torched. No-one ever knew who did it. :sorrow:</https:>
 
Last edited:

mezz

Well-known member
Nice story Frank & nice touch with the "Bleezard". Too bad the camp got torched though. It seems as though this was typical for those camps that were on leased land & the lease had expired. In the lease holders eyes it was easier to burn them than to disassemble them & they eliminated a potential liability hazard by leaving the structure abandoned. Just my observation, not what anyone likes to see happen that's for sure, but, when the lease is up, it's up & the landowner(s) can do as they please.-Mezz
 

Hoosier

Well-known member
I'd be in favor of states owning the forests as opposed to the feds. The lease was up for these people so what happened was fair but it would be better for the local govt to make the decisions on what to do with them going forward as opposed to big brother out east.
 
I think something similar went on in the Superior Forest in Minnesota about 10-15 years ago when the Feds announced that they would not renew a bunch of 99 year leases from the early 1900s that were expiring. Just something vague I remember hearing about and don't know the details of.
 

old abe

Well-known member
I'd be in favor of states owning the forests as opposed to the feds. The lease was up for these people so what happened was fair but it would be better for the local govt to make the decisions on what to do with them going forward as opposed to big brother out east.

Agree with your thoughts completely. But the truth is without the Feds, we would not have many large forests. Such as the Natl. Forests we all know of today, no matter how we choose to use them. That's just the fact that history proves.
 
C

Cirrus_Driver

Guest
Exactly like Last Alaskans, only in the ANWR, they gave the people till the death of their youngest child to vacate.
It's called the power of "eminent domain". Happened to my in-laws with a cottage on leased easement on Little Cedar Lake. Nice cabin - owners decided they wanted the $$'s, sold the land - cabin left behind.
 

snobuilder

Well-known member
Agree with your thoughts completely. But the truth is without the Feds, we would not have many large forests. Such as the Natl. Forests we all know of today, no matter how we choose to use them. That's just the fact that history proves.

More liberal thinking.
The problem with feds controlling public land is That one big broad brush stroke decision can affect areas from sea to shining sea.
Ppl want LESS Federal government control, not more.
I realize that the term public land really irks the liberals thought of central control.
 
Last edited:

old abe

Well-known member
"More liberal thinking"????????? Really??? Do you use that crutch for all of your disagreements/thoughts??? Quite the thought process. Without the Feds we would not have the land to begin with. And myself, my family, and many, many friends appreciate the Natl Forests, and Natl Parks. Like I said, history provides the proof.
 
C

Cirrus_Driver

Guest
More liberal thinking.
The problem with feds controlling public land is That one big broad brush stroke decision can affect areas from sea to shining sea.
Ppl want LESS Federal government control, not more.
I realize that the term public land really irks the liberals thought of central control.

Yep....Grand Old Liberals. GOL not GOP.
 

snobuilder

Well-known member
"More liberal thinking"????????? Really??? Do you use that crutch for all of your disagreements/thoughts??? Quite the thought process.
Without the Feds we would not have the land to begin with. And myself, my family, and many, many friends appreciate the Natl Forests, and Natl Parks. Like I said, history provides the proof.

I thought God created heaven and earth,....not the Federal government. God created, Government takes it away through regulation. You like that, I do not.
 

Hoosier

Well-known member
Agree with your thoughts completely. But the truth is without the Feds, we would not have many large forests. Such as the Natl. Forests we all know of today, no matter how we choose to use them. That's just the fact that history proves.

I hear you and agree the Feds set aside a lot of land that states might not otherwise have done. Still would like to see the states continue to own and manage them so at least the decision makers are local. I don't have issues at all with setting off land from commercial use but I think a more local govt might be more willing to grandfather in some of these cases. But still, these people got great deals, with long term leases of incredible land for next to nothing. It's not like anyone reneged on them.

Other than the aquaducts - what have the romans ever done for us?
 

old abe

Well-known member
I thought God created heaven and earth,....not the Federal government. God created, Government takes it away through regulation. You like that, I do not.

Agree, as I believe the Lord created all. I do not like over reach of any kind, Govt, Corp, or private. But history shows many times over, without the Feds we would not have many of our Natl Parks, or Forests we have today. And without the Feds, I'm not sure who would have control of these lands??? France??? England??? Spain??? As for regulation, that's what elections are for. As for myself, I am very thankful we have a Democratic Republic form of Govt. It may not be perfect, but it's as close as it comes!!!
 

snobuilder

Well-known member
I hear you and agree the Feds set aside a lot of land that states might not otherwise have done. Still would like to see the states continue to own and manage them so at least the decision makers are local. I don't have issues at all with setting off land from commercial use but I think a more local govt might be more willing to grandfather in some of these cases. But still, these people got great deals, with long term leases of incredible land for next to nothing. It's not like anyone reneged on them.

Other than the aquaducts - what have the romans ever done for us?

Gave us the well placed Christmas and Easter break holidays?
 
Top