User Panel
User Panel
User Panel
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:29:32 PM EDT
[#1]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There were different ecosystems in place then. The ecosystem was significantly different, even in the 1800s from what it is now. The world changes, for better or worse. This is basic biology -- environments change. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? There were different ecosystems in place then. The ecosystem was significantly different, even in the 1800s from what it is now. The world changes, for better or worse. This is basic biology -- environments change. The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:30:22 PM EDT
[#2]
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:30:39 PM EDT
[#3]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? There were different ecosystems in place then. The ecosystem was significantly different, even in the 1800s from what it is now. The world changes, for better or worse. This is basic biology -- environments change. The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? Dear god really? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:32:20 PM EDT
[#4]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Depending on your point of view, but unless you like hundreds of square miles of land open to shooting and dry camping with hardly any animals around, I think for most BLM land Mother Nature hasn't been very kind to it. Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Depending on your point of view, but unless you like hundreds of square miles of land open to shooting and dry camping with hardly any animals around, I think for most BLM land Mother Nature hasn't been very kind to it. Most BLM land is not park-like or pretty. BLM land is managed for multiple use, including mining, grazing and recreation. Much of it (and even more so the USFS) is intended to preserve the watershed for associated Reclamation projects that make farming and cities in the West even possible. Recreation is only a side benefit, but public lands are why life is better and freer than it is in the fenced-off "No Trespassing" East and Texas. Most of our East Coast friends are too obtuse to comprehend that public lands held in trust for the people are a necessity because of the water situation. It is funny how all the experts on Western land use live back east or in Texas... I think that there is some jealousy at play, and I don't blame them a bit. Living there would suck. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:33:11 PM EDT
[#5]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? There were different ecosystems in place then. The ecosystem was significantly different, even in the 1800s from what it is now. The world changes, for better or worse. This is basic biology -- environments change. The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? Over-grazing. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:33:26 PM EDT
[#6]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Ever try to hunt in Texas? My grandfather had to drive hundreds of miles and pay thousands of dollars to find a place where he could hunt, and he could only hunt from a stand, because the plot was too small and had too many hunters on it to be able to do anything other than stand hunt. Unless you've got an in with one of the five land-owners in the state, you can't really hunt in Texas. It's all private land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:37:21 PM EDT
[#7]
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. Assume for the most part arable lands are being farmed, many with water being brought in from long distances. Some ranching lands are privately owned. That's the vast majority of non-public lands Public lands - If they are nice or better they are either National Parks, National Monuments, State Parks. "Forested" then they are National Forests. Military Reservations - most aren't suitable to be any of the above, but are located conveniently for their use. BLM Lands - land that isn't good enough to be used for any of the above. The vast majority of which are located in what are classified as desert lands, not enough water to support any real sustained use. To give you an idea, if you drive from Victorville, CA to Las Vegas on I-15, that's about 190 miles, I don't think you will see any trees not planted and watered by men, with the exception of where you cross the Mojave River by V'ville where there are some cottonwoods. Maybe on Mountain Pass you might see some scrub trees. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:39:48 PM EDT
[#8]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You easterners have no concept of public land apparently. Have you ever heard of a national forest? There's a reason those exist. The state has no interest in most of the land out here. They've never done anything with it to begin with, and they'll do nothing but destroy it if they're given it. 
Wow. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:41:39 PM EDT
[#9]
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. So hows about you tell us how much time you have spent out here on the ground? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:42:39 PM EDT
[#10]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Ever try to hunt in Texas? My grandfather had to drive hundreds of miles and pay thousands of dollars to find a place where he could hunt, and he could only hunt from a stand, because the plot was too small and had too many hunters on it to be able to do anything other than stand hunt. Unless you've got an in with one of the five land-owners in the state, you can't really hunt in Texas. It's all private land. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Ever try to hunt in Texas? My grandfather had to drive hundreds of miles and pay thousands of dollars to find a place where he could hunt, and he could only hunt from a stand, because the plot was too small and had too many hunters on it to be able to do anything other than stand hunt. Unless you've got an in with one of the five land-owners in the state, you can't really hunt in Texas. It's all private land. lol |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:43:25 PM EDT
[#11]
Well the FSA is alive and well here I guess.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:47:49 PM EDT
[#12]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Well the federal land management folks are doing a bang-up job in California: 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). Quote HistoryQuoted:
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). Nice try but your blithering ignorance is showing. Why don't we drain the TVA Dams, turn off the power plants and you hill boys can go back to diddling your sisters or whatever you did when the kerosene ran low. BLM Lands are not farmlands |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:49:46 PM EDT
[#13]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Dear god really? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? There were different ecosystems in place then. The ecosystem was significantly different, even in the 1800s from what it is now. The world changes, for better or worse. This is basic biology -- environments change. The earth, then, was for gazillions of years capable of sustaining itself and all of the critters that use its various resources EXCEPT for mankind? When in our history did humankind (or any of our evolutionary ancestors) become enough of a burden on the land to make centralized land management necessary? What differences between ecosystems before that time and the ecosystems of today account for this radical change in the earth's ability to support human (or proto-human) life? Dear god really? Really. I want to know at what point nature became unable to "manage" itself without human assistance. I am also interested in how you can still go on a boar- and deer-hunting vacation in Italy after all those centuries of unmanaged growth? Or, did the Etruscans and Romans and Italians during the Dark Ages have bureaucrats who restricted land use? Also, what is nature up to here? It looks like a man-made structure in an urban area is decaying while flora are flourishing. Is it reasonable to guess that, if left alone, the plants will continue to flourish and provide cover and food for small animals and birds? It's almost as if nature is trying to reclaim the structure. Is this happening thanks to some diligent bureaucrat? 
What agency is managing nature's reclamation of this urbanized area? 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:51:15 PM EDT
[#14]
so, this is Federal land that Bundy is supposedly encroaching on?
If I had 1000 herd of cattle and let them loose on Bundy's claim, what would he do? Claim it was his land? Shoot me or my cattle? What differentiates this guy from any other squatter on any gov land? Don't we also gripe about below-market prices paid for gov land for many uses like mineral extraction? This guy is paying nothing! Please educate me |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:52:54 PM EDT
[#15]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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? Other than keep people off the land and try top get $$ from their politician cronies, most of the BLM land isn't particularly developable. As far as why the states are better, I might point out that while Amtrak is trying to build high speed trains at least they already have the basic right-of-ways and customer base, while in CA Sacramento are trying to do it, ignoring the enabling legislation, building it where it will never meet the legislated speed goals,never have the projected ridership and taking developed and in production farm lands to do it. That's kind of why we don't think the states can do it. For the most part Federal benign neglect has worked out pretty well here in CA. Whereas CA has pretty much fucked everything else since Browns first term |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:53:50 PM EDT
[#16]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
And you have a right to my tax dollars to provide you with recreational areas? 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. And you have a right to my tax dollars to provide you with recreational areas? And are your tax dollars providing you with free recreational land in Texas? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:56:13 PM EDT
[#17]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. 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. No really? tell us how much time you have spent on your feet in BLM land, not in a car driving through or flying over? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:57:10 PM EDT
[#18]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So basically, the most important thing is to be able to hunt on lands you do not own. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. As opposed to Bundy overgrazing on land he doesn't own? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 7:58:52 PM EDT
[#19]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
The government, at all levels, needs to divest itself of roads, highways and their easements. There is no basis, not in the Constitution, and not in Scripture for the government to own any property. These roads should be sold off to companies, who can then set tolls, fees and permit prices in accordance with whatever the market will bear. You people who want to drive need to just buy your own roadways. The DOT stifles innovation in roadiness, and the state, county and city are worse. Already doing that in Colorado with the toll road. Interesting what happens when State government (with limited access to their own State land) does when so constrained. Then again, look at what NYC, Jersey, and other States do in the East with tool roads. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:03:04 PM EDT
[#20]
Good. We need to get some timber rolling.
Posted Via AR15.Com Mobile |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:03:52 PM EDT
[#21]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
You easterners have no concept of public land apparently. Have you ever heard of a national forest? There's a reason those exist. The state has no interest in most of the land out here. They've never done anything with it to begin with, and they'll do nothing but destroy it if they're given it. That is simply not correct. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:04:36 PM EDT
[#22]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lemme guess - page 4 and people are still arguing for more government? am i accurate?  as usualno some are arguing that the states could manage it better, and in the case of maybe Utah, that's correct. However in the case of CA and AZ and NV, it's pretty much incorrect. Plus all the pie-eyed Easterners think it's all miles and miles of deeply forested verdant greenery like where they live. Not the absolutely arid nothingness that those of us who live out here know it is. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:14:12 PM EDT
[#23]
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. Wild animal populations are not well-managed by nature, they are by hunters, trappers, and conservation programs-which are financed by the private sector. Some groups of people have hunted species into extinction, whereas the current system works hard to preserve a viable population that the terrain can sustain. Maybe we agree on management, but it isn't D.C. that has even a clue what is going on, or what's good for each region. Ranchers letting cattle graze on almost exponentially larger plots of land does not damage the ecosystem like the emotional environmentalist groups claim they do. The Bundy Ranch is a great example of this, where tortoises and cattle have coexisted for 146 years. There wasn't a lot of timber in the high desert/mountainous States. If you ever get a chance to look at pictures of "now and then" of the Denver or Salt Lake Valleys, you will see a huge difference in greenery, as well as the mountain forests we have in the West. I'm totally on board with local and regional State compacts managing the land better than D.C will ever be able to, and our fire breaks, firefighters, and conservation programs maximize forest proliferation, which is a renewable resource under good stewardship. A lot of the land BLM imposes its arbitrary rules on doesn't need to be used, and couldn't be used as places for human habitation, but do have vast mineral resources, and much of the land area out West is used for military aerial delivered munitions training-or at least it was. A lot of the area in Nevada and Utah was subject to nuclear testing, which coincides closely with the date of BLM's creation in 1946. We banned above ground nuclear testing how many decades ago? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:15:40 PM EDT
[#24]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
lol Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Ever try to hunt in Texas? My grandfather had to drive hundreds of miles and pay thousands of dollars to find a place where he could hunt, and he could only hunt from a stand, because the plot was too small and had too many hunters on it to be able to do anything other than stand hunt. Unless you've got an in with one of the five land-owners in the state, you can't really hunt in Texas. It's all private land. lol Texas public hunting https://www.tpwd.state.tx.us/huntwild/hunt/public/lands/table_contents/ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:19:53 PM EDT
[#25]
If all those lands were managed by the states they would be strip mined and/or covered with housing developments controlled by HOAs.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:21:10 PM EDT
[#26]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. OK, so let's take all that as fact and bring this around full-circle. BLM needs to manage the land because private citizens cannot or will not do it. Before that, Indians were required to manage the lands. And, as you said in response to my original comments, nature has not done a good job of managing the land. How, then, was land ever managed before human beings lived there? How is it that life was ever possible without noble natives or upstanding bureaucrats to ensure that nature didn't trash itself? Are you talking about the Shoshones in CA that were grub eaters? but seriously, we are talking about lands that are in some cases so poor that even the noble and ignoble indians did their best to avoid some of these lands. (You seem to be interested in learning a little more about some of the area you might find these interesting, {url]http://www.amazon.com/Death-Valley-Amargosa-Land-Illusion/dp/0520063562/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1397967167&sr=1-1&keywords=death+valley+and+the+amargosa[/url] explorers, prospectors, con-men, "The Water Seekers" and "The Silver Seekers" by Remi Nadeau. Nadeau is the 4th of the name IIRC, is a History Professor at UCLA oh well, but his Remi Nadeau the First was the guy that ran the company that ran the 20 mule team wagons that supported mining camps and other activities in the eastern California and Southern Nevada Mining Districts) You should be able to get all via inter-library loan |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:22:34 PM EDT
[#27]
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. I've lived in CA, UT, GA, ME, VA/DC, WA, NC, CO, and UT again. Two of the biggest reasons you can't shoot 1000yds anywhere in the East without an expensive and rarely found range are because of: * The terrain and forests, which take a ton of cash to clear, grade, berm, and manage * Population density 
We have neither out West, and one of the coolest ranges in the world costs $7 per day, and you don't even need to bring targets, they have more steel than you can shoot in a weekend (North Springs Range, Price UT). The County used taxpayer money to build it $5.4 million). All the shooting I do in the East is on private or government property (US Military bases). We would have much better ranges out West if the property was privately owned or owned by the cities, but they still won't be able to cover down on it all, there is just no population density out here in the high desert. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:23:51 PM EDT
[#28]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? It started that way in CA, may I call your attention to the pics I posted^^ |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:25:38 PM EDT
[#29]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. While SD does have some BLM land, it isn't anywhere near a majority of the State like in UT or NV. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:25:53 PM EDT
[#30]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
as usualno some are arguing that the states could manage it better, and in the case of maybe Utah, that's correct. However in the case of CA and AZ and NV, it's pretty much incorrect. Plus all the pie-eyed Easterners think it's all miles and miles of deeply forested verdant greenery like where they live. Not the absolutely arid nothingness that those of us who live out here know it is. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
lemme guess - page 4 and people are still arguing for more government? am i accurate? as usualno some are arguing that the states could manage it better, and in the case of maybe Utah, that's correct. However in the case of CA and AZ and NV, it's pretty much incorrect. Plus all the pie-eyed Easterners think it's all miles and miles of deeply forested verdant greenery like where they live. Not the absolutely arid nothingness that those of us who live out here know it is. Being from the east has nothing to do with it. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows if a state gets control it will sell the land to their politically connected cronies. Fuck, the state shut down perfectly good prisons to sell the land to connected NOVA developers during the housing boom. Some say if the politicians do that you can vote them out.....Big fucking deal, what are you going to do about that big shiny condo building or wind farm sitting on former state land? Sure there is lots of currently valueless land out west but therein lies the danger. Buy it cheap in a tax deferred sweetheart deal and there goes those 1000 yard ranges westerners like to brag about. 
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:28:42 PM EDT
[#31]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
It started that way in CA, may I call your attention to the pics I posted^^ Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. There are no animals or trees and the land has been "rendered useless" in Texas? It started that way in CA, may I call your attention to the pics I posted^^ Josh What tree stand for Detroit Whitetail? Mechanical broadhead of fixed blade? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:35:04 PM EDT
[#32]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Being from the east has nothing to do with it. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows if a state gets control it will sell the land to their politically connected cronies. Fuck, the state shut down perfectly good prisons to sell the land to connected NOVA developers during the housing boom. Some say if the politicians do that you can vote them out.....Big fucking deal, what are you going to do about that big shiny condo building or wind farm sitting on former state land? Sure there is lots of currently valueless land out west but therein lies the danger. Buy it cheap in a tax deferred sweetheart deal and there goes those 1000 yard ranges westerners like to brag about.
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
lemme guess - page 4 and people are still arguing for more government? am i accurate? as usualno some are arguing that the states could manage it better, and in the case of maybe Utah, that's correct. However in the case of CA and AZ and NV, it's pretty much incorrect. Plus all the pie-eyed Easterners think it's all miles and miles of deeply forested verdant greenery like where they live. Not the absolutely arid nothingness that those of us who live out here know it is. Being from the east has nothing to do with it. Anyone with a lick of common sense knows if a state gets control it will sell the land to their politically connected cronies. Fuck, the state shut down perfectly good prisons to sell the land to connected NOVA developers during the housing boom. Some say if the politicians do that you can vote them out.....Big fucking deal, what are you going to do about that big shiny condo building or wind farm sitting on former state land? Sure there is lots of currently valueless land out west but therein lies the danger. Buy it cheap in a tax deferred sweetheart deal and there goes those 1000 yard ranges westerners like to brag about.
Very much so. Federal control of land is at least a very difficult bureaucracy for cronies to navigate to steal public land. State is much, much easier. It also changes the culture of the state really fast. Imagine all that beautiful forest land for sale in western states... suddenly being flooded with Californians who want to buy those wide open spaces. Say goodbye to the culture of the west. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:37:00 PM EDT
[#33]
Josh BLM USFS Are a threat to national security.
Some of the most dangerous areas along the southern border are the 20.7 million acres of Department of the Interior (DOI) and U.S. Forest Service (USFS) land. This includes 4.3 million acres of “Wilderness areas” where activities such as the use of motorized vehicles and construction of roads and structures are prohibited.
Documents show that the Department of the Interior and the U.S. Forest Service have consistently and actively taken steps that prevent the Border Patrol from securing our nation’s borders on federal lands. According to internal memos, DOI officials have asserted that the Wilderness Act of 1964 trumps border security legislation passed by Congress. Locked gate at the San Bernardino Wildlife Refuge in Arizona. Click to enlarge As a result, Border Patrol agents are being forced to wade through bureaucratic red tape just so they can do the job Congress has mandated: gain operational control over the U.S. border. The Department of the Interior is hindering border security efforts on federal lands by preventing the use of motorized vehicles, requiring DHS to complete lengthy and expensive environmental analysis, and at times literally locking out Border Patrol agents to prevent their access to some areas. link |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:38:41 PM EDT
[#34]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
This man gets it. Follow the money and what the state politicians stand to gain. Folks talk about Texas being the "Land of the Giant Hunting Lease" so do you want our open western lands to end-up the same way? The tortoise herders are bad to be sure but I really don't see a bunch of connected newly minted pecker-head "ranchers" being any better.
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. 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. This man gets it. Follow the money and what the state politicians stand to gain. Folks talk about Texas being the "Land of the Giant Hunting Lease" so do you want our open western lands to end-up the same way? The tortoise herders are bad to be sure but I really don't see a bunch of connected newly minted pecker-head "ranchers" being any better.
Both statements bear repeating. People giving FightingHellfish shit don't understand the nature and character and culture of the west. Those that think they do but still disagree don't see what will happen if all kinds of public use land suddenly disappears into real estate developers pockets through state politicians' hands. Look at Colorado's gun laws they passed - and are still on the books - now imagine that was the sale of huge stretches of the Rockies at discount prices to bring in more of their political allies - if they were selling that land to incoming Californians. Or maybe selling it at a discount to new "undocumented" people who Colorado really wants to help. Yeah, that'd go over well. Fed control of the land is not as bad as the alternative. It's a layer of bureaucracy that prevents some corruption. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:49:07 PM EDT
[#35]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Sarcasm I guess not.
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. Excuse me???????? Sarcasm I guess not.
what he is saying is in Texas its "dis be my land get da fook off it!!" and it is like that, hes also saying its a bad idea to let the crooks play with all that land and try and screw people over, alot of the water the states use is on the fed lands, the sates only want it so they use it to put the screws to the people with water taxes and even crazer stuff. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:51:39 PM EDT
[#36]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
So we should just give public land they've been destroying for years to them so they can own it? give away our resources so ranchers can make more money? You don't understand the discussion. Why is it in your mind that we dwellers in the West will destroy the land. That seems like a default response or conclusion in all your statements so far. Is your view of us really that twisted and out of touch? My great-great grandfather came here with the pioneers, and took a desolate, deserted set of valleys filled with tumbleweeds, and made them some of the most productive regions of the entire planet. Somehow, they were able to increase farmland and crops for over a century and a half, build infrastructure, transportation nodes, support the Pony Express, and blossom the area into what it is today. We have managed mining and energy projects, had an awesome steel production capacity (until they were shut down by Federal regulation), and continue to flourish somehow, despite government interference. Under President Buchanan, Johnston's Army came in to wipe us out, but this was averted by careful planning and delay tactics by the militia. After the illegal occupation and subversion of the residents of Utah was imposed, the Federal government leased much of Salt Lake City back to its inhabitants at 400% inflated cost, though they did nothing to help build it. I wonder how it is that I enjoy all these State Parks, whether I'm in the East or West. That is something none of the BLM apologists can answer. I'll be camping with my Scout Troop on municipally owned and managed land soon. I wonder how they do it? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:53:19 PM EDT
[#37]
Quote HistoryQuoted: First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: 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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. For fucks sake. The Indians used what they needed for survival, that is true. Therefore they did not use much of the resource at all, as there were not THAT many Indians to feed. There were MILLIONS of Bison. They "managed" nothing. Mastadons point still stands. All of those Bison didn't seem to waste away the West and neither do the cattle. It still appears that the couple of BLM defenders in this thread are mainly concerned about their own shooting and hunting spots. Not the land as a whole. I live in Ohio. I hunt every year. I have plenty of public and private lands to hunt. And yes, if I so chose, I can shoot at or beyond 1k yards. What is the population of these states in question? Especially compared to their size in area. Bet it's not as bad as Ohio and we do just fine. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 8:54:03 PM EDT
[#38]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Are those states in a fiscal position to manage those lands that they want? The federal government extracts money from the people in each state, losing shitloads of it to bureaucracy and then sends some of it back with strings attached. I'm sure the Western states will be fine without the Feds. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:05:31 PM EDT
[#39]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
so, this is Federal land that Bundy is supposedly encroaching on? If I had 1000 herd of cattle and let them loose on Bundy's claim, what would he do? Claim it was his land? Shoot me or my cattle? What differentiates this guy from any other squatter on any gov land? Don't we also gripe about below-market prices paid for gov land for many uses like mineral extraction? This guy is paying nothing! Please educate me Here's a shocker for you. Bundy did exactly that, with 52 other ranchers for 146 years, back to their great grandfathers. It's called being good neighbors. They ranched the land 76 years before the BLM even came into existence. The reality is that outside interests want his water rights, and he's the last man standing-BLM pushed all the other ranchers out. You also have some very influential companies that have discovered certain minerals in that land, and there is a ton of money and power to be brokered off it. They just need to get this guys' cattle off it, so they can bend him over, steal his water rights (they told him it would all go away if he just sold them at a fraction of value in 1993, when they stopped providing forced land management for a fee, and said the fee would now be for hurting the desert tortoise...). The Bundy's have been making improvements to the land, to include roads, fences, and watering sources for the cattle for 146 years, which holds a ton of weight in court. BLM knows that, and the environmentalists know that, as does Harry Reid and Sherry Berkley. BLM refused to enforce the court orders dating back to 1993 because the agents knew it was BS. I talked to multiple parties on opposing sides of this, including Rob Mrowka (biodiversity.org), and the Bundy's are refusing to take it lying down. They are clearly the victims who refuse to be victims, unlike the other 52 ranchers that bowed out under intimidation. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:14:23 PM EDT
[#40]
Congress back in the 76' when it created the BLM gave it way too much administrative law authority. Frankly, they were lazy and left it to the BLM to define everything giving them what I believe is far too much authority for the executive branch to have. Once again, our law makers create poorly constructed laws that have horrible consequences.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:37:35 PM EDT
[#41]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
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. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
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. Thanks for the update, lol. It's pretty damn minimal compared to states like Nevada. If you think farmers and ranchers dont care about the land they own I stand by my statement. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about. I don't believe in abolishing all national parks, but there is no fucking reason the fed gov should own 90% plus of the state of Nevada. A good portion of those red splashes on the SD map are Indian reservations. I welcome you to bring your know it all ass out here and see how well they are managed by the Fed gov. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 9:42:39 PM EDT
[#42]
No. It is time for the Feds to sell the land and put it into the private markets.
|
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:30:15 PM EDT
[#43]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Thanks for the update, lol. It's pretty damn minimal compared to states like Nevada. If you think farmers and ranchers dont care about the land they own I stand by my statement. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about. I don't believe in abolishing all national parks, but there is no fucking reason the fed gov should own 90% plus of the state of Nevada. A good portion of those red splashes on the SD map are Indian reservations. I welcome you to bring your know it all ass out here and see how well they are managed by the Fed gov. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. Thanks for the update, lol. It's pretty damn minimal compared to states like Nevada. If you think farmers and ranchers dont care about the land they own I stand by my statement. You don't have the slightest fucking clue what your talking about. I don't believe in abolishing all national parks, but there is no fucking reason the fed gov should own 90% plus of the state of Nevada. A good portion of those red splashes on the SD map are Indian reservations. I welcome you to bring your know it all ass out here and see how well they are managed by the Fed gov. You know what, in 1946 the BLM was created to manage the public lands that had existed since the early 1800s. They have since transferred over 70% of the land they manage to states and individuals. It works, it actually works rather well. BLM is actually a revenue producer, putting money back into the states whose land it manages. It has an annual budget of around a billion dollars, and produces around 5 billion in revenues... Still want to hand every bit of that off to the state of California to fuck up? If you want to fix it, why don't you go to washington and campaign on that issue and see how much people actually care, instead of inciting riots in Nevada over issues you fucking yankees can't begin to understand. BLM has nothing to do with Indian reservations for the record. That's Department of the Interior, Bureau of Indian Affairs. I might know... |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:31:30 PM EDT
[#44]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
No. It is time for the Feds to sell the land and put it into the private markets. They've transferred over 70% of the land they manage to private control or state control already. They use the remaining amounts to actually generate revenue, over half of which goes to the states who own the land. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:32:35 PM EDT
[#45]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
For fucks sake. The Indians used what they needed for survival, that is true. Therefore they did not use much of the resource at all, as there were not THAT many Indians to feed. There were MILLIONS of Bison. They "managed" nothing. Mastadons point still stands. All of those Bison didn't seem to waste away the West and neither do the cattle. It still appears that the couple of BLM defenders in this thread are mainly concerned about their own shooting and hunting spots. Not the land as a whole. I live in Ohio. I hunt every year. I have plenty of public and private lands to hunt. And yes, if I so chose, I can shoot at or beyond 1k yards. What is the population of these states in question? Especially compared to their size in area. Bet it's not as bad as Ohio and we do just fine. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. First of all, ranchers are not the only people who use that land. The land is not useless now, any more than it was before. Second, the bison were checked, first by the natives and then by the federal government later (and that program went too far as we all know). The natives believed the land belonged to everyone and thus they had a responsibility to take care of it. The Indians used what they needed for survival, that is true. Therefore they did not use much of the resource at all, as there were not THAT many Indians to feed. There were MILLIONS of Bison. They "managed" nothing. Mastadons point still stands. All of those Bison didn't seem to waste away the West and neither do the cattle. It still appears that the couple of BLM defenders in this thread are mainly concerned about their own shooting and hunting spots. Not the land as a whole. I live in Ohio. I hunt every year. I have plenty of public and private lands to hunt. And yes, if I so chose, I can shoot at or beyond 1k yards. What is the population of these states in question? Especially compared to their size in area. Bet it's not as bad as Ohio and we do just fine. You all believe in a lot of utter bullshit as gospel truth. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 10:33:37 PM EDT
[#46]
Lived in Utah since 1991. Enjoyed BLM land since I got here.
As it stands, Feds own most of the land here outside metro areas. I can camp, hunt, shoot, travel, sight see, ATV, and have basically unlimited (no binary targets) use of it. No developers can even think about resort towns, ranch getaways, oasis type places, air fields, or any development. (Dougway and Hill take up a bit of land out west) Lots of game out there, I can assure you. Not just unwanted space. If our governor sides with property owners over stream and river access issues (he has family who own land along a prominent river), why do I want the state having the final say over these lands when I can currently enjoy them as they sit? Management cost really isn't an issue as I see it because we typically have a surplus and the Feds presence now is minimum. Firefighting is the biggest cost, and do I want my state to pay that bill every year so we can be free to sell parcels as we see fit? Is it a straight up we should control the land within our boarder issue or do the other factors weigh in? |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:19:29 PM EDT
[#47]
Quote HistoryQuoted: While SD does have some BLM land, it isn't anywhere near a majority of the State like in UT or NV. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZH21fzFOsu4/TbxFFOvPgbI/AAAAAAAAn9M/UZF5lDjI9GI/s1600/5-511i.jpg Quote HistoryQuoted: Quoted: Quoted: 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. While SD does have some BLM land, it isn't anywhere near a majority of the State like in UT or NV. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZH21fzFOsu4/TbxFFOvPgbI/AAAAAAAAn9M/UZF5lDjI9GI/s1600/5-511i.jpg I really need to photoshop a map of the actual Nevada, and a few of the other western states, minus the federal lands. Disgusting. It's great watching the arfcommies defending this shit, though. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/19/2014 11:35:51 PM EDT
[#48]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
I really need to photoshop a map of the actual Nevada, and a few of the other western states, minus the federal lands. Disgusting. It's great watching the arfcommies defending this shit, though. Quote HistoryQuoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
Quoted:
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. While SD does have some BLM land, it isn't anywhere near a majority of the State like in UT or NV. http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-ZH21fzFOsu4/TbxFFOvPgbI/AAAAAAAAn9M/UZF5lDjI9GI/s1600/5-511i.jpg I really need to photoshop a map of the actual Nevada, and a few of the other western states, minus the federal lands. Disgusting. It's great watching the arfcommies defending this shit, though. Is being an "arfcommie" better than being an anarchist? If believing that government does have some role in the governing of this country, makes someone a "commie", I wonder how you all manage to tie your shoes in the morning and then magick your way to work so you can avoid using those government paid for roads. And btw, I don't need you to photoshop me a map, I fucking live in Nevada. I use BLM land all the time. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:03:36 AM EDT
[#49]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Please take the dick out of your mouth when you post here  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. 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 I am kinda with him on this though it pains me to admit it. This subject has long been something I struggle with. Do I like the fact that the Fed controls so much of AZ? NO, do I love the fact that the majority of that land is open for my use when hunting or fishing and there is no such think as a "Hunting Lease" in my state? yes. An overwhelming majority of that Fed controlled land is open for me to hunt or fish on. I don't have to buy or lease a piece of property just so I have a place to go during deer season. If it is opened to for private ownership the Rich will buy all the good stuff and charge to hunt on it and the rest of us will get stuck with the crumbs. Right now the kaibab National Forest is known for trophy deer and Elk and anyone has a shot hunting there. Open it up for sale and only the filthy rich will get a shot at those prime animals. |
|
|
|
Posted: 4/20/2014 12:09:59 AM EDT
[#50]
Quote HistoryQuoted:
Maybe it's hard to understand you since I live in a state where most of it is federal land Maybe it's hard for you to understand since you live in a state where you have to pay yearly fees to hunt a piece of property. |
|
|
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.
