User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:37:27 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? How much do you need to spend to "manage" vast tracts of wilderness area? I guess you could go nuts building recreational facilities, roads, etc., but that doesn't have anything to do with managing the land. Hasn't nature managed the land pretty well to this point? No, it actually hasn't. Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:39:28 PM EDT
[#2]
Quote HistoryQuoted: the Federal government shouldn't own all the land they do out west. it's bullshit. if that land could be transferred to the states and much of it sold, it would do very well to help the economies out there. keeping it federal allows it to remain stagnant. You are right. The .Gov owns more land than all the citizens combined and that is just wrong. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:40:30 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? How much do you need to spend to "manage" vast tracts of wilderness area? I guess you could go nuts building recreational facilities, roads, etc., but that doesn't have anything to do with managing the land. Hasn't nature managed the land pretty well to this point? No, it actually hasn't. Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Is land that is rendered useless through misuse any less useful than land that is not allowed to be used at all? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:42:05 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? How much do you need to spend to "manage" vast tracts of wilderness area? I guess you could go nuts building recreational facilities, roads, etc., but that doesn't have anything to do with managing the land. Hasn't nature managed the land pretty well to this point? No, it actually hasn't. Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:46:01 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? How much do you need to spend to "manage" vast tracts of wilderness area? I guess you could go nuts building recreational facilities, roads, etc., but that doesn't have anything to do with managing the land. Hasn't nature managed the land pretty well to this point? No, it actually hasn't. Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Lol, yeah you're right. We hardly have any topsoil or wildlife here in the dakota's.  How do we get by without the fed BLM owning and managing everything? You don't have a clue.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:56:51 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Is land that is rendered useless through misuse any less useful than land that is not allowed to be used at all? The land is allowed to be used. BLM actually does a great job of keeping it usable and minimizing the amount of regulating they have to do. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 1:58:10 PM EDT
[#7]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? How much do you need to spend to "manage" vast tracts of wilderness area? I guess you could go nuts building recreational facilities, roads, etc., but that doesn't have anything to do with managing the land. Hasn't nature managed the land pretty well to this point? No, it actually hasn't. Specifics? In what respect? What should be done to manage the land in question? What is the down side to not doing these things? I grew up around an entirely different sort terrain so I have no idea about what needs to be done to manage western wilderness areas. First, there are wild animals on that land. Humans will hunt them, and will pressure them off the land, disrupting the ecosystem significantly. Second, ranchers (like Mr. Bundy and his friends), will run their cattle over it, graze it to the dirt, and what soil exists will be blown away and the land will be rendered useless. Third, people will cut all the timber, leading to the same result. Those are just a couple of things off the top of my head that BLM regulates to keep the land useful. You know how I can tell you never grew up on a farm/ranch? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:00:33 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:01:16 PM EDT
[#9]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The land is allowed to be used. BLM actually does a great job of keeping it usable and minimizing the amount of regulating they have to do. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Is land that is rendered useless through misuse any less useful than land that is not allowed to be used at all? The land is allowed to be used. BLM actually does a great job of keeping it usable and minimizing the amount of regulating they have to do. So what was that tortoise thing all about? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:02:22 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Lol, yeah you're right. We hardly have any topsoil or wildlife here in the dakota's. How do we get by without the fed BLM owning and managing everything? You don't have a clue.http://www.blm.gov/mt/st/en/fo/south_dakota_field.html You have federally controlled land managed by the BLM in the Dakotas. Maybe you don't have a clue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:03:50 PM EDT
[#11]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You know how I can tell you never grew up on a farm/ranch? Actually I did, but thanks for playing. I've watched more ranchers destroy land they didn't own than you could probably ever imagine. Most farmers, especially those using public lands they're not responsible for, don't give a flying fuck about the land they're destroying. It's just a means to them making more money, and if they can blow off the fees so much the better. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:05:48 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So what was that tortoise thing all about? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Is land that is rendered useless through misuse any less useful than land that is not allowed to be used at all? The land is allowed to be used. BLM actually does a great job of keeping it usable and minimizing the amount of regulating they have to do. So what was that tortoise thing all about? Probably a clark county thing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:09:20 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually I did, but thanks for playing. I've watched more ranchers destroy land they didn't own than you could probably ever imagine. Most farmers, especially those using public lands they're not responsible for, don't give a flying fuck about the land they're destroying. It's just a means to them making more money, and if they can blow off the fees so much the better. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
You know how I can tell you never grew up on a farm/ranch? Actually I did, but thanks for playing. I've watched more ranchers destroy land they didn't own than you could probably ever imagine. Most farmers, especially those using public lands they're not responsible for, don't give a flying fuck about the land they're destroying. It's just a means to them making more money, and if they can blow off the fees so much the better. Heres a quarter to continue the game http://thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2013/february/cattle-and-healthy-soil.html Before farmers had inorganic fertilizer it was standard practice to rotate cattle with crops, so the cattle could add nutrients back to the soil. "When a person just had 40 acres and a mule, we were much more in tune with keeping soil productive than we are today with our 40-foot plows. Farms got larger, and farming technology got away from the basics of plant and soil health. As an industry we need to explore all alternatives, but at the end of the day if we're managing our grazing lands for soil health, we will be closer to balancing economic viability with ecologic sustainability." I must be some kinda stupid...but everywhere we turned out our cattle the land seemed much more fertile after the cattle were done shitting on it and spreading the nutrients around. I am no western rancher...but I doubt the cattle turn the ground into dust because they move on to other areas when the good grass is ate, leaving copious amounts of shit (nutrients) to go back into the soil. And if these guys truly dont give a fuck about the land...they are NOT farmers or ranchers at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:15:05 PM EDT
[#14]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:20:48 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Probably a clark county thing. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
So what was that tortoise thing all about? Probably a clark county thing. Nope. It was BLM who cited the plight of the tortoise as the reason for modifying the terms of Bundy's agreement: Link to article
It was the tortoise that kicked off the saga in 1993, when the BLM modified the terms of Bundy’s Bunkerville grazing allotment to protect the animal after it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I don't know what the original terms were or the nature of the changes, but it was definitely BLM according to every source I've read. According to this blog entry (we can choose to believe it or not--I'm not familiar with the author beyond what he says in the piece), BLM in 1993 reduced the number of cattle that could be grazed on the land in question to 150, which had a very significant impact on the land's usefulness to Bundy, who was grazing between 550 and 900 head. Are there many ranchers whose herds are 150 or less out that way? Here, it's the norm, but no idea how it works out there. Then, in 1994, BLM completely closed the land to grazing. So, if we are to believe BLM, this grazing land was rendered completely useless because of the desert tortoise. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:29:33 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Heres a quarter to continue the game http://thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2013/february/cattle-and-healthy-soil.html Before farmers had inorganic fertilizer it was standard practice to rotate cattle with crops, so the cattle could add nutrients back to the soil. "When a person just had 40 acres and a mule, we were much more in tune with keeping soil productive than we are today with our 40-foot plows. Farms got larger, and farming technology got away from the basics of plant and soil health. As an industry we need to explore all alternatives, but at the end of the day if we're managing our grazing lands for soil health, we will be closer to balancing economic viability with ecologic sustainability." I must be some kinda stupid...but everywhere we turned out our cattle the land seemed much more fertile after the cattle were done shitting on it and spreading the nutrients around. I am no western rancher...but I doubt the cattle turn the ground into dust because they move on to other areas when the good grass is ate, leaving copious amounts of shit (nutrients) to go back into the soil. And if these guys truly dont give a fuck about the land...they are NOT farmers or ranchers at all. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
You know how I can tell you never grew up on a farm/ranch? Actually I did, but thanks for playing. I've watched more ranchers destroy land they didn't own than you could probably ever imagine. Most farmers, especially those using public lands they're not responsible for, don't give a flying fuck about the land they're destroying. It's just a means to them making more money, and if they can blow off the fees so much the better. Heres a quarter to continue the game http://thecattlemanmagazine.com/archives/2013/february/cattle-and-healthy-soil.html Before farmers had inorganic fertilizer it was standard practice to rotate cattle with crops, so the cattle could add nutrients back to the soil. "When a person just had 40 acres and a mule, we were much more in tune with keeping soil productive than we are today with our 40-foot plows. Farms got larger, and farming technology got away from the basics of plant and soil health. As an industry we need to explore all alternatives, but at the end of the day if we're managing our grazing lands for soil health, we will be closer to balancing economic viability with ecologic sustainability." I must be some kinda stupid...but everywhere we turned out our cattle the land seemed much more fertile after the cattle were done shitting on it and spreading the nutrients around. I am no western rancher...but I doubt the cattle turn the ground into dust because they move on to other areas when the good grass is ate, leaving copious amounts of shit (nutrients) to go back into the soil. And if these guys truly dont give a fuck about the land...they are NOT farmers or ranchers at all. Yes, that's responsible farming and raising cattle, the way my Grandfather did it. Practiced by almost no one anymore, because they don't have 40 acre farms. They've got a million acres of BLM land to abuse instead. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:30:04 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands out
west are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands out
west are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. I live here, and that's a false statement. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:31:55 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted: I live here, and that's a false statement. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. I live here, and that's a false statement. OK what ever. You not provided one shred of evidence to support your claim other than You can shoot farther there. Which has nothing to do with your original claim. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:32:12 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Nope. It was BLM who cited the plight of the tortoise as the reason for modifying the terms of Bundy's agreement: I don't know what the original terms were or the nature of the changes, but it was definitely BLM according to every source I've read. According to this blog entry (we can choose to believe it or not--I'm not familiar with the author beyond what he says in the piece), BLM in 1993 reduced the number of cattle that could be grazed on the land in question to 150, which had a very significant impact on the land's usefulness to Bundy, who was grazing between 550 and 900 head. Are there many ranchers whose herds are 150 or less out that way? Here, it's the norm, but no idea how it works out there. Then, in 1994, BLM completely closed the land to grazing. So, if we are to believe BLM, this grazing land was rendered completely useless because of the desert tortoise. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what was that tortoise thing all about? Probably a clark county thing. Nope. It was BLM who cited the plight of the tortoise as the reason for modifying the terms of Bundy's agreement: Link to article
It was the tortoise that kicked off the saga in 1993, when the BLM modified the terms of Bundy’s Bunkerville grazing allotment to protect the animal after it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I don't know what the original terms were or the nature of the changes, but it was definitely BLM according to every source I've read. According to this blog entry (we can choose to believe it or not--I'm not familiar with the author beyond what he says in the piece), BLM in 1993 reduced the number of cattle that could be grazed on the land in question to 150, which had a very significant impact on the land's usefulness to Bundy, who was grazing between 550 and 900 head. Are there many ranchers whose herds are 150 or less out that way? Here, it's the norm, but no idea how it works out there. Then, in 1994, BLM completely closed the land to grazing. So, if we are to believe BLM, this grazing land was rendered completely useless because of the desert tortoise. Ok, so we should just destroy endangered species so one guy can have more land to run his cattle on? Land he doesn't own, keep in mind... We're not talking about somebody's property rights here. I mean, one can argue about the endangered species list all day long, but I suspect they have a legal duty to do something about it if there's an impact. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:32:34 PM EDT
[#20]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Can you elaborate on what that means, exactly? I'm sorry, but Texas is a Godawful place to live, expressly because of the lack of public lands. That's the reason you people have to buy up all the Elk tags in the Southwest, and why you see so many Texas plates in the NF lands in the summer. Refugees. Stay home and enjoy your no trespassing signs. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. Please take the dick out of your mouth when you post here  Can you elaborate on what that means, exactly? I'm sorry, but Texas is a Godawful place to live, expressly because of the lack of public lands. That's the reason you people have to buy up all the Elk tags in the Southwest, and why you see so many Texas plates in the NF lands in the summer. Refugees. Stay home and enjoy your no trespassing signs. So, let me get this straight, private property = bad and government ownership of property for people = good. Does that sum it up?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:34:42 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So, let me get this straight, private property = bad and government ownership of property for people = good. Does that sum it up? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. Please take the dick out of your mouth when you post here Can you elaborate on what that means, exactly? I'm sorry, but Texas is a Godawful place to live, expressly because of the lack of public lands. That's the reason you people have to buy up all the Elk tags in the Southwest, and why you see so many Texas plates in the NF lands in the summer. Refugees. Stay home and enjoy your no trespassing signs. So, let me get this straight, private property = bad and government ownership of property for people = good. Does that sum it up? That's not what he's saying at all. Your counter argument is that all national parks and national forests should be sold to the highest bidder to put houses on, right? Because that's what's going to happen. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:36:52 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK what ever.
You not provided one shred of evidence to support your claim other than You can shoot farther there. Which has nothing to do with your original claim. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands out
west are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. I live here, and that's a false statement. OK what ever.
You not provided one shred of evidence to support your claim other than You can shoot farther there. Which has nothing to do with your original claim. What evidence do you want? You made a false assertion, I answered it with a simple fact. It's false. You want pictures? I have pictures, but I'm not going to post them to win an internet epenis contest. You're pontificating about a place you've never been, telling stories that aren't true. There is essentially zero public land in the east. It's all owned by individuals and corporations. We have public land in the west. You don't have to like it, it is what it is and has always been. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:38:32 PM EDT
[#23]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Ok. So, would you not be better off if we could 1) Manage the land for multiple uses, energy development being one of them? 2) Is it not cheaper to not fuck things up, instead of having to go back and fix them? 3) If we can extract energy, AND not fuck things up, isn't that superior then? 4) Regulation is necessary to prevent "tragedy of the commons." (Google that one before you respond) The problem is that we have 2 diametrically opposed groups that are both fundamentally wrong about natural resources. We have the camp that thinks that they should be able to do whatever they want with natural resources, end-run consequences be damned. Then we have the camp that says that natural resources can't be used for anything that produces a product, because that's wrong. Well, I'll tell you, they are both just as wrong. The best, and most solid land management strategies come from being able to extract meaningful products from those resources, but managing them so that the use can be had year after year, not just for one or two years before we strip the land of the ability to regenerate and continue to provide products that we desire. Use too much too quick, and you won't get any the next year. That's a net loss. Not matter how you cut it. For the producer, and for everyone else. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: I am from Alaska where a lot of our oil resources are roped off by the Feds, ANWR was created out of political spite by Jimmy Carter to harm the state of Alaska because our senator Gravel displeased him. We could have more wealth, more jobs, cheaper oil, but we can't because of idiots in Washington DC. Ok. So, would you not be better off if we could 1) Manage the land for multiple uses, energy development being one of them? 2) Is it not cheaper to not fuck things up, instead of having to go back and fix them? 3) If we can extract energy, AND not fuck things up, isn't that superior then? 4) Regulation is necessary to prevent "tragedy of the commons." (Google that one before you respond) The problem is that we have 2 diametrically opposed groups that are both fundamentally wrong about natural resources. We have the camp that thinks that they should be able to do whatever they want with natural resources, end-run consequences be damned. Then we have the camp that says that natural resources can't be used for anything that produces a product, because that's wrong. Well, I'll tell you, they are both just as wrong. The best, and most solid land management strategies come from being able to extract meaningful products from those resources, but managing them so that the use can be had year after year, not just for one or two years before we strip the land of the ability to regenerate and continue to provide products that we desire. Use too much too quick, and you won't get any the next year. That's a net loss. Not matter how you cut it. For the producer, and for everyone else. So what you are saying is that the federal government, that bastion of good science and smart planning, should be the arbiters of land use. How much of the land in the State of Texas should my fellow bourgeoisie residents be allowed to own? Which department should be the lead on taking those stupid Texan's land away for better common use? I mean after Kelo it's not as if we would have to be paid. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:38:47 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted: What evidence do you want? You made a false assertion, I answered it with a simple fact. It's false. You want pictures? I have pictures, but I'm not going to post them to win an internet epenis contest. You're pontificating about a place you've never been, telling stories that aren't true. There is essentially zero public land in the east. It's all owned by individuals and corporations. We have public land in the west. You don't have to like it, it is what it is and has always been. You made a claim that the State cannot manage land as well as the .Gov. Backed it with no facts and then claim you are right. Ok |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:39:51 PM EDT
[#25]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ok, so we should just destroy endangered species so one guy can have more land to run his cattle on? Land he doesn't own, keep in mind... We're not talking about somebody's property rights here. I mean, one can argue about the endangered species list all day long, but I suspect they have a legal duty to do something about it if there's an impact. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
So what was that tortoise thing all about? Probably a clark county thing. Nope. It was BLM who cited the plight of the tortoise as the reason for modifying the terms of Bundy's agreement: Link to article
It was the tortoise that kicked off the saga in 1993, when the BLM modified the terms of Bundy’s Bunkerville grazing allotment to protect the animal after it was listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. I don't know what the original terms were or the nature of the changes, but it was definitely BLM according to every source I've read. According to this blog entry (we can choose to believe it or not--I'm not familiar with the author beyond what he says in the piece), BLM in 1993 reduced the number of cattle that could be grazed on the land in question to 150, which had a very significant impact on the land's usefulness to Bundy, who was grazing between 550 and 900 head. Are there many ranchers whose herds are 150 or less out that way? Here, it's the norm, but no idea how it works out there. Then, in 1994, BLM completely closed the land to grazing. So, if we are to believe BLM, this grazing land was rendered completely useless because of the desert tortoise. Ok, so we should just destroy endangered species so one guy can have more land to run his cattle on? Land he doesn't own, keep in mind... We're not talking about somebody's property rights here. I mean, one can argue about the endangered species list all day long, but I suspect they have a legal duty to do something about it if there's an impact. I get all that, but the point I was trying to make is BLM, whatever their reasons or how valid those reasons might be, rendered 600,000 acres useless to cattle ranchers. That land is now no more useful than it would have been had nefarious ranchers destroyed it in the name of profit. Useless land is useless land, regardless of how it came to be that way. I'd also be interested in learning how, in the days before the coming of the white man, the Great Plains weren't desertified by enormous herds of bison grazing them unchecked by BLM oversight. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:42:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No. We need to give private enterprise and the free market a chance to work this out. The only reason there aren't viable water sources is because neither has been allowed to innovate. Cut the land free, and watch progress happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: what's wrong with private property. you people communist? think everything should belong to the state?  wtf You really don't understand the topic that you are talking about. Not even to the slightest degree. The public lands are a necessity in the West. Google "Powell." Read what he figured out about it 140 years ago. Then read about Western water law and water rights. Then read about the history of the Reclamation Era. Then read about Conservation and Multiple Use. Then read about the existing land use culture in the West where people expect to be able to use the public lands as a basic premise of human life. That's just a start. Get back to me in six months, then we can START to have a discussion. No. We need to give private enterprise and the free market a chance to work this out. The only reason there aren't viable water sources is because neither has been allowed to innovate. Cut the land free, and watch progress happen. This is one of the biggest reason for the utter failure of water policy. There is zero innovation because there is zero money to be made. There is a local group that has come up with the brilliant idea of banning lawns to save water. As if that address a single underlying issue. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:44:24 PM EDT
[#27]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? They aren't liberal / commie shit holes. That's in itself goes a long way toward being in a fiscal position to do a lot. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:51:07 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. What? And federal EPA save the turtles and the kangaroo rats people are better? The land is better in private hands than in a PC, over regulated federal environment. Just dropping the bureaucracy to a state level alone is better. You argue about corruption. Harry Reid, Nancy (my husband gets the contract for the federal light rail system) ring a bell? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:52:35 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted: you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. That's real retarded, sir.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:53:44 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well, one thing that you don't realize about sage grouse, is that Sage brush and sage grouse are obligates. Get rid of either, and that ecosystem fails. It's not as small of an issue as you make it out to be. If the ecosystem fails, it will cost us more $$$ that we made from recovering the minerals......to recover the system. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? 
I think that proper land management can achieve both. Well, one thing that you don't realize about sage grouse, is that Sage brush and sage grouse are obligates. Get rid of either, and that ecosystem fails. It's not as small of an issue as you make it out to be. If the ecosystem fails, it will cost us more $$$ that we made from recovering the minerals......to recover the system. And we need to recover that ecosystem because? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:53:52 PM EDT
[#31]
Well the federal land management folks are doing a bang-up job in California:
The US Bureau of Reclamation released its first outlook of the year and finds insufficient stock is available in California to release irrigation water for farmers. This is the first time in the 54 year history of the State Water Project. "If it's not there, it's just not there," notes a Water Authority director adding that it's going to be tough to find enough water, but farmers are hit hardest as "they're all on pins and needles trying to figure out how they're going to get through this." Fields will go unplanted (supply lower mean food prices higher), or farmers will pay top dollar for water that's on the market (and those costs can only be passed on via higher food prices).
Via AP, Federal officials announced Friday that many California farmers caught in the state's drought can expect to receive no irrigation water this year from a vast system of rivers, canals and reservoirs interlacing the state. Contractors that provide farmers with water and hold historic agreements giving them senior rights will receive 40 percent of their normal supplies. Some contracts date back over a century and guarantee that farmers will receive at least 75 percent of their water. One of those is the San Joaquin River Exchange Contractors Water Authority in Los Banos that provides irrigation for 240,000 acres of farmland. So, do you think the Kenyan and his boys will print some money and buy the Kali farms some water to honor the old contracts? I think that the Feds are trying to corral our food supply and manage it all (with the help of some Oligarchs like ADM, Monsanto, Kraft, General Mills, etc). |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:56:43 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. The states want to sell the land off to developers and make all the states just like TX, where there is no public land to do anything with. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Once they get control and can sell resources off of it? Absolutely. It will make money for the state, more than likely. No. The states want to sell the land off to developers and make all the states just like TX, where there is no public land to do anything with. Why are developers bad (they want to make the most of a resource, yes?) and why is getting benefit from otherwise wasted land wrong and why do you trust the Feds to do the right thing by it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 2:59:56 PM EDT
[#33]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's real retarded, sir. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. That's real retarded, sir. Not at all. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:02:39 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted: No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. And you have a right to my tax dollars to provide you with recreational areas?
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:05:27 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: BULL SHIT. States can manage the land just fine as is evident in the East. No, they can't. I've lived both places -- have you? The state "managing the land" equates to the state selling it off to the highest bidding developer and the land becoming useless to everyone but the people who want to build houses on it. Again -- I've lived in VA, I've lived in the midwest, and I own property in Nevada. I can go out on BLM land and shoot 1000 yards any time I want. Can't do that anywhere in VA that I know of, and certainly not without paying a range fee. The only rifle range anywhere near Tidewater was up to charging three grand a year to shoot there last time I checked. you are now talking apples and oranges and to be honest the lands outwest are trash dumps compared to the lands in the east managed by the States. You have not a clue of what you are talking about. That's real retarded, sir. Not at all. Very much so. Have you been out west? I have spent many summers in Florida, having grown up in Georgia, and you statement couldn't be further from the truth.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:06:32 PM EDT
[#36]
Wow this thread has a bad case of the Troll. A don't know WTF he's talking about troll and very prolific with the profanities and straw man arguments.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:06:55 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You really don't understand the topic that you are talking about. Not even to the slightest degree. The public lands are a necessity in the West. Google "Powell." Read what he figured out about it 140 years ago. Then read about Western water law and water rights. Then read about the history of the Reclamation Era. Then read about Conservation and Multiple Use. Then read about the existing land use culture in the West where people expect to be able to use the public lands as a basic premise of human life. That's just a start. Get back to me in six months, then we can START to have a discussion. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
what's wrong with private property. you people communist? think everything should belong to the state?
wtf You really don't understand the topic that you are talking about. Not even to the slightest degree. The public lands are a necessity in the West. Google "Powell." Read what he figured out about it 140 years ago. Then read about Western water law and water rights. Then read about the history of the Reclamation Era. Then read about Conservation and Multiple Use. Then read about the existing land use culture in the West where people expect to be able to use the public lands as a basic premise of human life. That's just a start. Get back to me in six months, then we can START to have a discussion. And that changes if states start managing the situation how? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:07:09 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Utah has balanced budget rules for the legislature, an extremely low unemployment rate, is rich in quality employees, tech, foreign language speakers, infrastructure in the Salt Lake Valley, major defense with Hill AFB (one of two Defense Logistics hubs for the USAF), and a free environment compared to many other States, especially when it comes to 2A. Utah DOT manages projects better than a lot of States. There is plenty of room for improvement, but opening up BLM land to the State would be a huge benefit. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:07:14 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted: That's not what he's saying at all. Your counter argument is that all national parks and national forests should be sold to the highest bidder to put houses on, right? Because that's what's going to happen. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: Quoted: OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. Please take the dick out of your mouth when you post here Can you elaborate on what that means, exactly? I'm sorry, but Texas is a Godawful place to live, expressly because of the lack of public lands. That's the reason you people have to buy up all the Elk tags in the Southwest, and why you see so many Texas plates in the NF lands in the summer. Refugees. Stay home and enjoy your no trespassing signs. So, let me get this straight, private property = bad and government ownership of property for people = good. Does that sum it up? That's not what he's saying at all. Your counter argument is that all national parks and national forests should be sold to the highest bidder to put houses on, right? Because that's what's going to happen. Most states have a surplus of houses, what would be the point of building house that no one wants to buy? I mean it happens in China, for what reason I can't fathom. But I have worked with and for a lot of developers in my life and none of them would build houses with little expectation of selling them. The argument that all BLM land will be turned into HOAs is silliness.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:09:44 PM EDT
[#40]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. These "conferences" are all about transferring Federal lands to state control where selected rich and influential individuals can acquire the deeds. There are very good reasons why the dry Western states need a preponderance of public lands, and I certainly don't expect the derptastic ignorance of East Coast Bible-based 8th-grade-education GD logic to understand. Signing them over to a bunch of thieving lawyers in the state legislature is stupidity of the highest order and would completely destroy the quality of life in the West, aside from the water disaster, you might as well move down South or to Texas... no freedom of movement on the land and home of the "No Trespassing" sign. Fuck No. Yeah, because those lawyers in D.C. do such a better job of managing land than we do. Interesting how I was able to enjoy State Parks all over the East Coast without the issues you raise, and they are totally owned by the States, minus military installations and other provisions covered under the Constitution. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:09:52 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Very much so. Quote HistoryQuoted: Not at all. Very much so. Have you been out west? I have spent many summers in Florida, having grown up in Georgia, and you statement couldn't be further from the truth. Yes I have and I am right the deserts are full of trash. Members on this site have posted pictures on this site of it quite regularly. I have been to many State Parks in FL all my life and never seen such a mess. I have been out West myself and it is not rosy like you seem to be claiming. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:13:30 PM EDT
[#42]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
the Federal government shouldn't own all the land they do out west. it's bullshit. if that land could be transferred to the states and much of it sold, it would do very well to help the economies out there. keeping it federal allows it to remain stagnant. Yeah lets sell it all off so we can be like Texas. Where you have no public land. You should be a politician. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:14:20 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted: Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Not at all. Very much so. Have you been out west? I have spent many summers in Florida, having grown up in Georgia, and you statement couldn't be further from the truth. Yes I have and I am right the deserts are full of trash. Members on this site have posted pictures on this site of it quite regularly. I have been to many State Parks in FL all my life and never seen such a mess. I have been out West myself and it is not rosy like you seem to be claiming. Much of the West isn't desert sand like Nevada. There aren't many state parks that compare with any Park in the Rocky Mountain region. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:14:23 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And the feds aren't? Look at Keystone. They are content to let unemployment fester and ruin lives of the public to satisfy their ideology and environmentalist donors. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
OH FUCK NO. The state legislatures are full of petty crooks that would be stealing the cookies from the cookie jar faster than you can imagine. Keystone is about Obama carrying Putin's water so that the US can't export refined oil/NG to our European allies, keeping them dependent on Russian oil/NG, especially as Russia re-surges. Comparatively, the US economy is the least hardest hit in any global downturn, because of our assets and infrastructure. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:14:26 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I also live in a state that is mostly Federally managed. Alaska is the state where the single greatest number of my family members reside. I've been there many times. Many, perhaps most, Alaskans choose to live there because of, not in spite of, the access to the land. I think most Alaskans would not be happy under your plan when they discovered that they could no longer hunt, float and fish at will because all the land was in the private holdings of large companies. However, Alaska is entirely different. Since you purport to understand the topic, I'm amazed that you wouldn't see that water is the root of public lands in the West, and that is a much different issue in Alaska. So basically, the most important thing is to be able to hunt on lands you do not own. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:14:57 PM EDT
[#46]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Utah has balanced budget rules for the legislature, an extremely low unemployment rate, is rich in quality employees, tech, foreign language speakers, infrastructure in the Salt Lake Valley, major defense with Hill AFB (one of two Defense Logistics hubs for the USAF), and a free environment compared to many other States, especially when it comes to 2A. Utah DOT manages projects better than a lot of States. There is plenty of room for improvement, but opening up BLM land to the State would be a huge benefit. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Utah has balanced budget rules for the legislature, an extremely low unemployment rate, is rich in quality employees, tech, foreign language speakers, infrastructure in the Salt Lake Valley, major defense with Hill AFB (one of two Defense Logistics hubs for the USAF), and a free environment compared to many other States, especially when it comes to 2A. Utah DOT manages projects better than a lot of States. There is plenty of room for improvement, but opening up BLM land to the State would be a huge benefit. Wyoming is running in surplus mode plus the Fed owes us a chunk of money for fees they have confiscated over the years. And I am on BLM land quite often also have friends getting harassed by BLM on their Private Property. Look up Sage grouse core areas to find information on Fed agency harassment. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:15:37 PM EDT
[#47]
Wyoming has the money to take over, let the feds keep Jellystone, and we take over the rest with restrictions on what the state can do with the land.
I don't want wildlands being developed or improved, or owned privately. Let the state take it over. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:15:46 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Unless I'm mistaken... When it's federal lands, it's exempt from taxes. So the states (depending on the amount of land that the Feds hold) then lose that much of the state's potential tax base. So the remaining state residents have to take up the slack with their state taxes. The Feds don't get anything from it (since most is not being used to generate a revenue)...so the Feds are running a net 'negative' balance by needing funds to administer the lands...so it requires additional federal taxes to cover that outlay. So...the taxpaying citizens are losing twice because the feds hold the land.... Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Unless I'm mistaken... When it's federal lands, it's exempt from taxes. So the states (depending on the amount of land that the Feds hold) then lose that much of the state's potential tax base. So the remaining state residents have to take up the slack with their state taxes. The Feds don't get anything from it (since most is not being used to generate a revenue)...so the Feds are running a net 'negative' balance by needing funds to administer the lands...so it requires additional federal taxes to cover that outlay. So...the taxpaying citizens are losing twice because the feds hold the land.... Yes, this is true. But dammit! We have to be able to hunt and ride mountain bikes and fuck all of the taxpayers. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:16:28 PM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Actually, what the government is getting from these natural resources, that you hate being under federal control....the most important, and if it was unavailable...the west would be toast. That resource is water. If you fuck up the mountains here, we won't be able to get water like we have now. That's just ONE way that fucking around and "not managing, just let natural selection take place," sell the land off, and for what? More people that the land can't support, even at it's full capacity? Yeah, great ideas you have there. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? Unless I'm mistaken... When it's federal lands, it's exempt from taxes. So the states (depending on the amount of land that the Feds hold) then lose that much of the state's potential tax base. So the remaining state residents have to take up the slack with their state taxes. The Feds don't get anything from it (since most is not being used to generate a revenue)...so the Feds are running a net 'negative' balance by needing funds to administer the lands...so it requires additional federal taxes to cover that outlay. So...the taxpaying citizens are losing twice because the feds hold the land.... Actually, what the government is getting from these natural resources, that you hate being under federal control....the most important, and if it was unavailable...the west would be toast. That resource is water. If you fuck up the mountains here, we won't be able to get water like we have now. That's just ONE way that fucking around and "not managing, just let natural selection take place," sell the land off, and for what? More people that the land can't support, even at it's full capacity? Yeah, great ideas you have there. And the Feds are doing such a damn fine job of it too.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 3:19:56 PM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Do you think that if the BLM land between I-15 and the Virgin Mountains was managed by the State of Nevada, rather than the Feds, that the State would have sided with Cliven Bundy and against the Reids (LOL) over some big money solar project? I can assure you that they would not... in most Western States the law obligates the state to only consider the greatest financial gain in terms of land use decisions... further, had that land been managed by the State, you can bet your ass that Cliven Bundy's refusal to pay his grazing fees would have been nipped in the bud the first year, not twenty years down the road. If the state of Nevada was running that area, some developer (who just happens to be a state senator) would have long since seized Bundy's water rights by imminent domain, and the State would have sold off that public domain land for pennies on the dollar to develop "Mesquite Valley Highlands Planned Community and Golf Resort." Just an upshot being that land now open for hunting, hiking, camping, shooting and four-wheeling would be locked up. However, some dudes in the state legislature would be happier, and richer, and Cliven Bundy would be decades gone from the land. FACT. Happens all over the West just as soon as State Land (which is not public in the same sense as Federal domains) reach a tipping point of cash value. Go to the Arizona HTF and ask what is happening to State Lands formerly used for hunting, shooting (and grazing) around Florence now that real estate is picking back up. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
I'll concede that State legislatures are controlled by crooks. But they responsive to their constitutes and most importantly THEY CAN BE HELD ACCOUNTABLE. Try holding some piece of shit bureaucrat at the EPA or Department of the Interior accountable. You can't. By design, we have next to no recourse with those people. Is this solution perfect? No. Is giving power back to the States, where it belongs, better than the central control of unaccountable federal thugs? Yes. That right there. It will fall on blind eyes though- all that the broke blue states and federal employees can think of right now is how to get more life support out of the federal government, and they mistakenly think that people like Harry Reid can turn a profit on command economic programs like Solar Energy. Do you think that if the BLM land between I-15 and the Virgin Mountains was managed by the State of Nevada, rather than the Feds, that the State would have sided with Cliven Bundy and against the Reids (LOL) over some big money solar project? I can assure you that they would not... in most Western States the law obligates the state to only consider the greatest financial gain in terms of land use decisions... further, had that land been managed by the State, you can bet your ass that Cliven Bundy's refusal to pay his grazing fees would have been nipped in the bud the first year, not twenty years down the road. If the state of Nevada was running that area, some developer (who just happens to be a state senator) would have long since seized Bundy's water rights by imminent domain, and the State would have sold off that public domain land for pennies on the dollar to develop "Mesquite Valley Highlands Planned Community and Golf Resort." Just an upshot being that land now open for hunting, hiking, camping, shooting and four-wheeling would be locked up. However, some dudes in the state legislature would be happier, and richer, and Cliven Bundy would be decades gone from the land. FACT. Happens all over the West just as soon as State Land (which is not public in the same sense as Federal domains) reach a tipping point of cash value. Go to the Arizona HTF and ask what is happening to State Lands formerly used for hunting, shooting (and grazing) around Florence now that real estate is picking back up. BLM already did this above in bold to Gold Butte, years and years ago. I talked to Bunkerville Constable's office about it, and they cut them off from their Boy Scout Camp, Church Picnic and camping sites, as well as access to the river. You do have points about eminent domain however, and there have been countless cases that support your statements about local municipalities screwing people out of their land. |
|
|
Win a FREE Membership!
Sign up for the ARFCOM weekly newsletter and be entered to win a free ARFCOM membership. One new winner* is announced every week!
You will receive an email every Friday morning featuring the latest chatter from the hottest topics, breaking news surrounding legislation, as well as exclusive deals only available to ARFCOM email subscribers.
AR15.COM is the world's largest firearm community and is a gathering place for firearm enthusiasts of all types.
From hunters and military members, to competition shooters and general firearm enthusiasts, we welcome anyone who values and respects the way of the firearm.
Subscribe to our monthly Newsletter to receive firearm news, product discounts from your favorite Industry Partners, and more.
Copyright © 1996-2024 AR15.COM LLC. All Rights Reserved.
Any use of this content without express written consent is prohibited.
AR15.Com reserves the right to overwrite or replace any affiliate, commercial, or monetizable links, posted by users, with our own.
