Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Should the federal government divest itself of land in the West?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #46
    Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
    The only reason I shall grammar Nazi you and say that it's actually "eminent domain" is for the sake of pointing out that your spelling of it is probably far more accurate.

    Government has been getting grabbier than a 2 year old surrounded by colorful legos. Imminent domain is a much better description.

    Love to take the credit but I'm afraid I have to give 100% credit to SpellCheck.
    It corrected the spelling to a whole different word and I didn't even realize it until now.

    Comment


    • #47
      In point of fact since 1935 Federal lands have been managed by the USDA Forest Service, the DOI Park Service and the DOI Bureau of Land Management.

      Yellowstone is a testament to how poorly the Park Service manages land. This is the most overgrazed and abused tract of land in the US.

      The USDA does a good job of managing its lands when the politicians allow the professionals to actually do it. The idiotic political decision not to log areas to protect the infamous spotted owl is documentation about just how stupid Washington, DC is.

      The Bureau of Land Management is a bureaucratic mess which I can only compare to the gestapo as far as working with people goes.

      If most of these Federal properties were deeded to the states much better management would occur.

      Texas has very little Federal land but has substantial State holdings since 1 section in every township was dedicated to leasing it for public schools. Works very well.
      "If you are right, then you are right even if everyone says you are wrong. If you are wrong then you are wrong even if everyone says you are right." William Penn.

      Comment


      • #48
        Good post, and it gets really mind-boggling when you see how MUCH land is being mis-managed.

        Here is how it stacks up, in millions of acres out of the 1/4 of the US that the Govt "owns".


        Department of Defense- 14.4 (again, millions of acres.

        National Park Services- 79.6

        Fish and Wildlife service- 89.1

        Forest Service - 192.9

        Bureau of Land Management - 247.3

        Time for a haircut, wouldn't you say?
        "Why is the Rum gone?"

        -Captain Jack

        Comment


        • #49
          For those of us who actually live in these western states it is now and always will be a double edged sword.
          First my vote is no, for many reasons, but primarily because there are limited water resources here, Arizona and California are perfect examples of why we shouldn't entice development in areas where there is limited water to support human activity. Period.
          But I have to say some of the comments here are humorous, some are just insulting.
          I like the fact that Utah and Idaho and Nevada have vast wildernesses available for their citizens to enjoy, protected from development and exploitation. We are still cleaning up the messes made by uncontrolled and unregulated mining and logging operations. We seen what mining operations s have done to Virgina, W. Virginia and Kentucky. Just drive through Wyoming on I-80 and see the enormous coal strip mining operation, no thanks!
          But it seems odd that those who live in states where the federal government has little control are voicing any opinion, especially those who question why our states (our legitimate elected state officials) would be less capable of managing all the property within our borders then their state officials are at running their states! In other words, if you live in a state without the same federal interference as we have, you are not qualified to question our abilities.
          Dispite our best intentions, the system is dysfunctional that intelligence failure is guaranteed.
          Russ Travers, CIA analyst, 2001

          Comment


          • #50
            I vote turn the land over to the State. However, the burden of maintaining the land (fire issues for one) would be difficult for the state. Therefor I say take the money the federal government uses and turn it over to the state. However, another issue then becomes a problem. How to insure that the State uses the money strictly for land management. We all know how politicians like to spend money. So all in all I think most sates know what works best for the land within their borders. I'm ****** tired of the federal government enacting rules and regulations concerning land use and "national monuments".
            Too Much To Do Too Little Time

            Comment


            • #51
              Originally posted by FTCS View Post
              ... I'm ****** tired of the federal government enacting rules and regulations concerning land use and "national monuments".
              You ain't the only one, and its not like this is something new.

              I just posted a hugely important vid in the "Armed Militia" thread from the COngressmen that is trying to represent this area. Here is another one, from 7 years ago that shows the situation -

              "Why is the Rum gone?"

              -Captain Jack

              Comment


              • #52
                Originally posted by Surrey View Post
                Never ceases to amaze me how socialist America is. There is no real reason for the state to own significant amounts of land. They should sell it to reduce the deficit rather than burdening tax payers.
                If only the government knew how to manage debt and not burden tax payers.

                Comment


                • #53
                  Again, the government should own no land. At all. Ever.

                  Congress can meet in a hotel conference room, the president can stay in his own home, government agencies can rent office space, and the military can ask politely if they can blow up someone else's dirt.

                  Have the government beg desperately for space to operate continuously.

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    Excellent concept, DoD! I like it.

                    However, the government would never have to beg for space to operate, as it is capable of renting all of the unused and constantly increasing office space all over America, or we could require Congress and the Senate to meet publicly in school and university gymnasiums where the students and the public can see what sort of critical thinking and dedicated activities their hard earned tax dollars is actually buying.
                    Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by Pirateship1982 View Post
                      This does beg the question: if it's so worthless then why throw a hissy fit over ranchers being on it?

                      It may have been worthless over a century ago but the more people we have the more real estate we didn't originally like starts looking worthwhile. With the world population blasting up like it is it will eventually become profitable to develop scrubland into residential areas to maximize the use of farmland. We're not there yet but we will get there at some point in the future. Times change.
                      Yes, BLM and over Govt lands are expanding, so they certainly have something in mind. Its gone from care-taking land nobody wanted just yet into a real estate monopoly.
                      Instead of selling or parceling it out, they appear to be holding it for sale to nice, friendly people like the Saudis or the Red Chinese.
                      Might this been how they plan to pay off the endlessly expanding debt?

                      Times do indeed change, there are resources to be exploited there, and I doubt the PRC would let the welfare of a species of Mosquito hold them back for one second when it comes to getting the oil out of ANWAR, for example.


                      Originally posted by Daemon of Decay View Post
                      Again, the government should own no land. At all. Ever.

                      Congress can meet in a hotel conference room, the president can stay in his own home, government agencies can rent office space, and the military can ask politely if they can blow up someone else's dirt.

                      Have the government beg desperately for space to operate continuously.
                      I need to spread more Rep around.
                      It certainly would humble the Mighty, but we have gone so far beyond the point here our Aristocracy have any connection with the rest of the Human Race, its just a dream.

                      Government Employees average at least 20% higher pay, in addition to the sweetheart deal they have on retirement (it used to be the later that was the big incentive for Govt work, now its just a perk).
                      Its now the norm for Senators and Governors to be Millionaires.
                      "Why is the Rum gone?"

                      -Captain Jack

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally Posted by Pirateship1982
                        This does beg the question: if it's so worthless then why throw a hissy fit over ranchers being on it?

                        It may have been worthless over a century ago but the more people we have the more real estate we didn't originally like starts looking worthwhile. With the world population blasting up like it is it will eventually become profitable to develop scrubland into residential areas to maximize the use of farmland. We're not there yet but we will get there at some point in the future. Times change.
                        We're already there and have been for decades. Highland Ranch on the outskirts of Denver, national poster child for uncontrolled urban sprawl on the cover of NatGeo years back, is entirely on "worthless land." Scrub land is cheap to buy and often quite easy to develop.

                        The availability of land isn't the issue. Water is.
                        Quis Custodiet Ipsos Custodes? Who is watching the watchers?

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Just wait until someone finally discovers Big Foot, then the government will take all the land west of CO because Big Foot will be a protected species.

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            The problem with that s Big Foot s seen East of CO as well!

                            Pruitt
                            Pruitt, you are truly an expert! Kelt06

                            Have you been struck by the jawbone of an ASS lately?

                            by Khepesh "This is the logic of Pruitt"

                            Comment

                            Latest Topics

                            Collapse

                            Working...
                            X