Land Rights

[azgreg]

The Bundy fiasco and the ordeal up in Oregon has brought a lot of light on land rights, especially in the western states.

If this map is accurate it's a traveshamockery.



It's of my opinion that the western states brought this upon themselves with piss poor negotiating when the applied to the union. However, things can change right?

I'm a big states rights guy and I believe that land used by the state and it's residents should be controlled by the state and it's residents. Land used for national parks like Yosemite and The Grand Canyon that are enjoyed by everybody in the nation are a different thing all together. There is a real problem when the fed establishes some habitat or rfuge and deems it off limits then just let it sit and rot is wrong.

Please feel free to convince me of the error of my ways. :2razz:

 

[JayDubya]

There needs to be a lot less red on that map.

 

[WCH]

Most of those locations are rich in resources. The FedGov is all about control.

Here's a perfect example.

The Utah Coal Lockup: A trillion dollar Lippo payoff?

 

[Dittohead not!]

The Bundy fiasco and the ordeal up in Oregon has brought a lot of light on land rights, especially in the western states.

If this map is accurate it's a traveshamockery.

View attachment 67195184

It's of my opinion that the western states brought this upon themselves with piss poor negotiating when the applied to the union. However, things can change right?

I'm a big states rights guy and I believe that land used by the state and it's residents should be controlled by the state and it's residents. Land used for national parks like Yosemite and The Grand Canyon that are enjoyed by everybody in the nation are a different thing all together. There is a real problem when the fed establishes some habitat or rfuge and deems it off limits then just let it sit and rot is wrong.
Please feel free to convince me of the error of my ways. :2razz:

National forest and BLM lands are also enjoyed by everyone. The rules are not the same in the national forests, which allow for such things as hunting, off roading (in certain areas) and walking of dogs along the trails.

Those lands belong to me. They belong to you. They need to be preserved and protected for not only the enjoyment of everyone, but, with proper regulation, for exploitation of mining, grazing, and timbering.

 

[azgreg]

National forest and BLM lands are also enjoyed by everyone. The rules are not the same in the national forests, which allow for such things as hunting, off roading (in certain areas) and walking of dogs along the trails.

Those lands belong to me. They belong to you. They need to be preserved and protected for not only the enjoyment of everyone, but, with proper regulation, for exploitation of mining, grazing, and timbering.

I'm not saying that it all should be turned over to private citizens. I'm saying that a bulk of it should be under state management.

 

[Casper]

The Bundy fiasco and the ordeal up in Oregon has brought a lot of light on land rights, especially in the western states.

If this map is accurate it's a traveshamockery.

View attachment 67195184

It's of my opinion that the western states brought this upon themselves with piss poor negotiating when the applied to the union. However, things can change right?

I'm a big states rights guy and I believe that land used by the state and it's residents should be controlled by the state and it's residents. Land used for national parks like Yosemite and The Grand Canyon that are enjoyed by everybody in the nation are a different thing all together. There is a real problem when the fed establishes some habitat or rfuge and deems it off limits then just let it sit and rot is wrong.

Please feel free to convince me of the error of my ways. :2razz:

If it is a refuge it is not just sitting and rotting, strange where have I heard that before, oh yeah sounds like what the white man said when he hit the Americas, they just forgot to ask those living there if they were using it. Some things just have to be left as it is, by the way you might want to go look at some of that land, you might understand why it is not being used all that heavily.

 

[Dittohead not!]

I'm not saying that it all should be turned over to private citizens. I'm saying that a bulk of it should be under state management.

Why?

Why do you think the state could do a better job of managing it? It's not like it's necessarily being well managed now, you understand, but I don't trust the State of California to do any better job of it than the Department of agriculture is doing now.

 

[azgreg]

If it is a refuge it is not just sitting and rotting, strange where have I heard that before, oh yeah sounds like what the white man said when he hit the Americas, they just forgot to ask those living there if they were using it. Some things just have to be left as it is, by the way you might want to go look at some of that land, you might understand why it is not being used all that heavily.

Sorry I wasn't clear in the point of my OP. It's not what the land is used for or if it's used at all really. It's more about that the land within the border should more often than not be under the management of that state and not the fed. There are exceptions of course such as national parks like I stated in the OP as well as military bases and the like.

 

[azgreg]

Why?

Why do you think the state could do a better job of managing it? It's not like it's necessarily being well managed now, you understand, but I don't trust the State of California to do any better job of it than the Department of agriculture is doing now.

Because the land is under their feet. I agree that they are just as likely to screw things up as the fed. However, if they do, it's on them and not some guy in a chair a couple of thousand miles away.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Because the land is under their feet. I agree that they are just as likely to screw things up as the fed. However, if they do, it's on them and not some guy in a chair a couple of thousand miles away.

No, it's on some guy in a chair a hundred miles away instead.

Perhaps some states could do a better job of managing the national forests than the Dep. of Agriculture is doing.

Looking at the state with which I'm most familiar, California, I have serious doubts. I think it would actually be worse. What would happen is the regulations would have to be approved by the voters in LA and San Francisco, who have no clue at all what proper forest or game management entails.

 

[Casper]

Sorry I wasn't clear in the point of my OP. It's not what the land is used for or if it's used at all really. It's more about that the land within the border should more often than not be under the management of that state and not the fed. There are exceptions of course such as national parks like I stated in the OP as well as military bases and the like.

No problem there as you stated it above.

 

[Casper]

No, it's on some guy in a chair a hundred miles away instead.

Perhaps some states could do a better job of managing the national forests than the Dep. of Agriculture is doing.

Looking at the state with which I'm most familiar, California, I have serious doubts. I think it would actually be worse. What would happen is the regulations would have to be approved by the voters in LA and San Francisco, who have no clue at all what proper forest or game management entails.

Yeup, California and a handful of others probably would not be trustworthy when it comes to land management, their track record on so many issues is one to try and avoid. Lived in LaLa land for a while back in the 80's got the heck out of the State the second my contract with Rockwell ended, the place sucks the soul out of people our neighbor moved out there with her sister in SD and the water rationing and nuts living there are making her wish she had stayed, luck for her she did not sell her home here, I give her less than a year before she is outa there.

 

[WCH]

No, it's on some guy in a chair a hundred miles away instead.

Perhaps some states could do a better job of managing the national forests than the Dep. of Agriculture is doing.

Looking at the state with which I'm most familiar, California, I have serious doubts. I think it would actually be worse. What would happen is the regulations would have to be approved by the voters in LA and San Francisco, who have no clue at all what proper forest or game management entails.

You're right about California. They might sell it to China.

 

[OrphanSlug]

As with most things Federal land use rights by citizens are antiquated, problematic, and subject to political whim.

Most of the issues we face on this subject could have been handled by Congress long ago, in consideration of how things had been going for a very long time.

 

[Casper]

You're right about California. They might sell it to China.

At this point we might have to pay them to take it, Aww just kidding, we should just open re-education camps to deprogram the many brainwashed and crazy citizens they have living there, it could be a nice place to visit one day. Oh, the ocean is Real disappointing, COLD as Ice Water, nice to look at but stay out of it, give me the Atlantic or Gulf any day.

 

[akrunner88]

No, it's on some guy in a chair a hundred miles away instead.

Perhaps some states could do a better job of managing the national forests than the Dep. of Agriculture is doing.

Looking at the state with which I'm most familiar, California, I have serious doubts. I think it would actually be worse. What would happen is the regulations would have to be approved by the voters in LA and San Francisco, who have no clue at all what proper forest or game management entails.

And you think private citizens and companies can manage the land better? Lmao

I live out in California and have driven through most of Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming and I don't want some redneck assholes spoiling the vast beauty of our country just because some "libertarians" have this false impression that the individual citizen or corporation is somehow more equipped to care for the land than our federal government.

Things are fine the way they are. Leave it be. And I'll add on to that statement and say I wish the National Guard would shoot dead these idiot right wingers holing themselves up. Treat them as they would treat the situation if a "black militia" or Muslim militia barricaded themselves in this building. **** them.

 

[azgreg]

And you think private citizens and companies can manage the land better? Lmao

I live out in California and have driven through most of Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming and I don't want some redneck assholes spoiling the vast beauty of our country just because some "libertarians" have this false impression that the individual citizen or corporation is somehow more equipped to care for the land than our federal government.

Love the progressive tolerance and compassion for their fellow man.

Things are fine the way they are. Leave it be. And I'll add on to that statement and say I wish the National Guard would shoot dead these idiot right wingers holing themselves up. Treat them as they would treat the situation if a "black militia" or Muslim militia barricaded themselves in this building. **** them.

You might want to turn on the news a little tonight.

 

[Iamjesus]

I'd prefer the Canadian and Australian example. Crown land (public) is by default is controlled by the provinces and states. ( exception National Parks).

A few decades ago I would have preferred under Federal jurisdiction but l lived in Las Vegas a couple years during the Yucca Mountain fiasco. It was unsettling how the locals were steam rolled by the Feds. I'm sure if it was in the middle of Montana or Wyoming that the Feds would have gotten away with doing whatever they wanted. People in small local towns wouldn't have had the clout of Las Vegas and the media to protest.

 

[Dittohead not!]

1. And you think private citizens and companies can manage the land better? Lmao

2. I live out in California and have driven through most of Utah, Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and Wyoming and I don't want some redneck assholes spoiling the vast beauty of our country just because some "libertarians" have this false impression that the individual citizen or corporation is somehow more equipped to care for the land than our federal government.

3. Things are fine the way they are. Leave it be. And I'll add on to that statement and say I wish the National Guard would shoot dead these idiot right wingers holing themselves up. Treat them as they would treat the situation if a "black militia" or Muslim militia barricaded themselves in this building. **** them.

1. no. That would be infinitely worse.
2. There is a lot of beautiful country there, for sure. It is a national treasure.
3. Forests aren't well managed, IMO right now. Putting them in someone else's hands is not the answer, however. More science and fewer politics need to be used to determine how public lands are managed.

The forests, for example, here in California have become overgrown. They are prone to wildfires, much more so than they would be if small fires had been allowed to thin the brush and small trees. This situation is improving, however.

 

[akrunner88]

1. no. That would be infinitely worse.
2. There is a lot of beautiful country there, for sure. It is a national treasure.
3. Forests aren't well managed, IMO right now. Putting them in someone else's hands is not the answer, however. More science and fewer politics need to be used to determine how public lands are managed.

The forests, for example, here in California have become overgrown. They are prone to wildfires, much more so than they would be if small fires had been allowed to thin the brush and small trees. This situation is improving, however.

I'm in complete agreement.

 

[mike2810]

The Bundy fiasco and the ordeal up in Oregon has brought a lot of light on land rights, especially in the western states.

If this map is accurate it's a traveshamockery.

View attachment 67195184

It's of my opinion that the western states brought this upon themselves with piss poor negotiating when the applied to the union. However, things can change right?

I'm a big states rights guy and I believe that land used by the state and it's residents should be controlled by the state and it's residents. Land used for national parks like Yosemite and The Grand Canyon that are enjoyed by everybody in the nation are a different thing all together. There is a real problem when the fed establishes some habitat or rfuge and deems it off limits then just let it sit and rot is wrong.

Please feel free to convince me of the error of my ways. :2razz:

Land used on National Forest, grass lands, deserts (USFS , BLM lands) are used by everyone.

That said. Ok, lets say give the National Forest and Public Lands to the State.
- Do you really believe the State govt can manage the resource better?
- Lets look at fire suppression costs. Do you really think the States can absorb the costs? Taxes would have to go way up, or are you expecting the Feds to pay the cost. Remember the feds no longer have responsibility and its State property.
- If the State sells the land to the private sector. That is a one time influx of money to the State. After that, future generations in the State would have a reduced land base. Once sold its gone.
- Federal Agencies like the USFS , BLM make payments to the States.

Basically resources on Federal Lands belong to all of us. I see no benefit to having the States take over Federal lands.

So how much are you willing to see your State taxes go up to pay for the management and protection of the current federal lands?

 

[Deuce]

Like anybody gives a crap about land in Nevada.

 

[azgreg]

Land used on National Forest, grass lands, deserts (USFS , BLM lands) are used by everyone.

That said. Ok, lets say give the National Forest and Public Lands to the State.
- Do you really believe the State govt can manage the resource better?
- Lets look at fire suppression costs. Do you really think the States can absorb the costs? Taxes would have to go way up, or are you expecting the Feds to pay the cost. Remember the feds no longer have responsibility and its State property.
- If the State sells the land to the private sector. That is a one time influx of money to the State. After that, future generations in the State would have a reduced land base. Once sold its gone.
- Federal Agencies like the USFS , BLM make payments to the States.

Basically resources on Federal Lands belong to all of us. I see no benefit to having the States take over Federal lands.

So how much are you willing to see your State taxes go up to pay for the management and protection of the current federal lands?

While I'm in favor of a higher percentage of lands staying with the state I'm in favor of a higher percentage of the taxes staying with the state as well.

Now there is nothing wrong with the state collaborating with the fed on our parks and protected lands as long as the ultimate authority lies with thestate.

 

[Dittohead not!]

Like anybody gives a crap about land in Nevada.

Why wouldn't they?

 

[Deuce]

Why wouldn't they?

Oh please, it's the driest state in the nation don't act like that picture is representative.